Sri Sai Sapthagiri Agency vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep.

Held

The Court found that the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order directing the disposal of seized stocks without considering the petitioner's representation dated August 3, 2017, and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the alleged violations were of a trivial and technical nature and that the petitioner could substantiate this in the inquiry under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. Consequently, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for the release of seized stocks upon furnishing a bank guarantee for an amount determined by the 3rd respondent. This release would be subject to further orders in the Section 6(A) inquiry. The Court also stayed the sale of seized stocks pending consideration of the representation and directed the Competent Authority to conclude the Section 6(A) inquiry within three months.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Sai Sapthagiri Agency, engaged in fertilizer sales, had its stock seized on August 3, 2017, by Vigilance and Enforcement Officials. The seizure was based on allegations of clandestine business and black marketing, contravening Clause 4(a) and 35(1) of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1985, and invoking Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner possessed a valid fertilizer license and GST provisional registration. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent, without considering the petitioner's representation, ordered the disposal of the seized stocks. The petitioner challenged this seizure and disposal order as illegal and arbitrary, arguing the alleged violations were technical and minor.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of fertilizer stocks and the subsequent order for their disposal by the 3rd respondent were illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the petitioner's pending representation and the alleged technical nature of the violations under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Fertilizers Control Order, 1985? Petitioner's arguments: The violations alleged were trivial and technical, with no intent for black marketing. The 3rd respondent acted arbitrarily by ordering the disposal of seized stocks without considering the petitioner's representation and without affording an opportunity of being heard. Revenue/State's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment.