Immidisetty Venkata Srinivasa Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that the seized rice is perishable in nature and that the auction had not been conducted even after one year. Considering these factors, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Joint Collector by filing an application within two weeks of receiving the order. The respondents were directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application, imposing necessary conditions, and to complete the entire exercise within one week of the application being filed. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality of the proceedings or the constitutional violations alleged by the petitioner, but rather facilitated a procedural resolution for the release of the seized goods.

Facts

The petitioner, Immidisetty Venkata Srinivasa Rao, proprietor of Sri Subramanyeswara Rice Mill, leased the mill and is registered for GST. On April 2, 2024, the second respondent framed a charge against the petitioner under clause 19(F) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, and directed the Tahsildar to auction 378 quintals of seized PDS rice. The petitioner, learning of this, stated the stock was lying in the store and expressed readiness to file an application before the Joint Collector for its release. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings illegal and to direct the release of the seized stock upon furnishing a personal bond or third-party surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings in Rc.No. RC.CS1/6A/25/2024, dated 30.3.2024, on the file of the 2nd respondent are illegal, void, arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, concerning the seizure and proposed auction of 378 quintals of rice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the proceedings were illegal, void, arbitrary, unjust, and violated constitutional rights. The petitioner sought the release of the seized stock by furnishing a personal bond or third-party surety, highlighting the perishable nature of rice and the delay in auction proceedings. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The court's decision was based on the perishable nature of the goods and the delay in auction.