Sri Radha Hari Millers vs. The State Of Ap

The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of running a Rice Mill for processing paddy into rice. In the course of such business, the petitioner took a rice mill on lease and commenced operations in the year 2017 after obtaining the requisite trade licence and GST registration. The petitioner has taken a rice mill on lease in the name and style of M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill, situated at Y.B. Patnam Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District and the petitioner firm is running the said rice mill with a valid license issued by the Civil Supplies authorities, after obtaining licences from the Agricultural Market Committee, Narsipatnam, and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The petitioner firm use to purchase paddy from farmers, get the same milled, and sell the resultant W.P.NO.151 OF 2026 rice to traders for retail sale. The petitioner supplies rice to traders at Narsipatnam, Anakapalli, and Visakhapatnam.

While so, on 04.10.2025, the petitioner received an order from traders at Narsipatnam for the supply of nearly 300 quintals of rice and accordingly, the petitioner loaded 608 bags of rice (each weighing 50 kgs) into his own lorry bearing Registration No. AP 05 TA 9699 during the night of 04.10.2025. The lorry was dispatched in the early hours of 05.10.2025 after issuing way bills and other supporting documents, for delivery stock at Narsipatnam. When the said lorry, reached M.B. Patnam Village en route to Narsipatnam, the Civil Supplies and Vigilance authorities intercepted the vehicle and seized the same, treating the said stock as Public Distribution System (PDS) rice. Despite the driver producing the way bills and other documentary evidence to establish that the rice was not PDS rice, the inspecting officials allegedly obtained the driver’s signatures on a statement in a high-handed manner and prepared a mediator’s report. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent lodged a case against the petitioner in FIR No.119 of 2025, dated 05.10.2025, for the alleged offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya W.P.NO.151 OF 2026 Sanhita (BNS) and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”).

The 3rd respondent also filed a report under Section 6-A of the Act before the 2nd respondent for registering a case against the petitioner concern. Pending the 6-A proceedings, the petitioner submitted a petition on 13.10.2025 for release of vehicle and stock. As no orders were passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.32282 of 2025, wherein, this Court passed orders, the operative portion of writ as reads thus:- “...Since the petitioner has submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 13.10.2025 requesting release of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 05 TA 9699 and the seized stock on his furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the stock, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 13.10.2025 and release the same in accordance to law within a period of one (01) weeks from the date of recipe of a copy of this order.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the orders in W.P.No.32282 of 2025 passed by this Court, the 2nd W.P.NO.151 OF 2026 respondent issued two separate memos on 19.12.2025, one for release of the vehicle and another for release of the stock in favour of the petitioner, subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.8,00,000/- for release of the seized lorry and for Rs.12,76,800/- for release of the seized stock. Aggrieved by the memos dated 19.12.2025, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has already agreed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.12,76,800/- for releasing the seized stock, while claiming that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards release of seized vehicle is onerous and caused hardship to him as he has already incurred heavy loss on account of seizure of the stock.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reported no objection.

Considering the submissions made and in view of the facts and circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee to a tune of Rs.12,76,800/-, which is equivalent to the value of the stock issued in favour of the Joint Collector, W.P.NO.151 OF 2026 Anakapalli, from any Nationalised Bank, for release of the seized stock, while the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.8,00,000/- towards release of the seized vehicle is hereby modified to the extent of furnishing third party immovable property as security, instead of bank guarantee, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that on receipt of such security, the 2nd respondent shall release the seized vehicle, subject to condition that the same shall not be alienated or altered during the pendency of 6-A proceedings. No costs.