Nithya Enterprises vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court noted the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides. Specifically, it took into consideration the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing respondents 1 to 4, that a notice under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, had been issued to the petitioner. This notice required the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent (Collector, Civil Supplies Department, Medak District) on 11.08.2026. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent as per the notice and to file a representation seeking the release of the seized stock of rice. Upon the petitioner filing such an application within one week from the receipt of the order, the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the representation in accordance with law, adhering to the principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court did not decide the legality of the seizure itself but disposed of the writ petition with these directions. No costs were imposed.

Facts

Nithya Enterprises, a licensed grain merchant with GST registration, sold 300 quintals of rice (FIR states 294.50 quintals) to Yog Enterprises, Maharashtra, under Invoice No. 17 dated 05.04.2026. The consignment, transported in vehicle R111GB9025, was intercepted by Revenue Inspector (CS) and SHO, Toopran, on 06.04.2026. Despite the driver presenting valid invoices and transport documents, and explaining the rice was privately purchased and not from the Public Distribution System (PDS), the vehicle and stock were seized. A FIR (Crime No. 118/2026) was registered on 07.04.2026 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. Nithya Enterprises filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary, and for the release of the seized stock, citing infringement of their right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of rice by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, based on Crime No. 118/2026, is illegal, improper, and without authority of law, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was arbitrary and mechanical, conducted without proper legal authority. They argued that the rice was a result of a bona fide commercial transaction, supported by valid invoices and transport documents, and was not intended for the PDS. The continued detention of the perishable stock would lead to irreparable loss. They relied on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Respondents' arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies informed the Court that a notice under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, had been issued to the petitioner, requiring their appearance before the 2nd respondent on 11.08.2026. They submitted that the petitioner should present their plea for the release of the seized stock before the 2nd respondent.