M/S.Nagaraja Traders vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the Writ Petition. It directed the 2nd respondent to complete the 6-A proceedings pending before him and pass orders as per law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also ordered that the same be communicated to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel, and a perusal of the material record, deeming it appropriate in the interests of justice to expedite the adjudication of the pending 6-A proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory authority has a pending proceeding that can resolve the dispute, the High Court may direct its expeditious completion rather than deciding the writ petition on merits, especially when interim orders have already provided some relief.

Facts

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Nagaraja Traders, leased a rice mill and obtained a GST license. The mill processed government paddy and also purchased paddy for milling and selling rice. On September 25, 2020, respondents seized rice from the mill based on allegations of selling PDS rice in the open market, registering a crime under IPC and Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner filed WP No. 19747 of 2020, obtaining a stay on proceedings. Subsequently, another inspection led to the seizure of rice and a lorry in a separate crime. The petitioner filed WP No. 18645 of 2020, and the court directed the release of seized stocks and the vehicle upon furnishing security. A 6-A case was also filed alleging violation of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. The present Writ Petition No. 25671 of 2020 was filed challenging these actions. The seized stocks and vehicle were released pursuant to an interim order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the lorry and rice bags by respondents 3 and 4, and the consequential Panchanama dated 11.11.2020 and 12.11.2020, are illegal, arbitrary, and against the law? (This is framed as a question of law and fact, relating to the procedural correctness of the seizure and Panchanama). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the seizure and Panchanama were illegal and arbitrary. They relied on the fact that the seized stocks and vehicle had already been released pursuant to an interim order of the Court, vide proceedings of the District Collector dated 17.06.2021, upon furnishing security. Revenue/State's contentions: The learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that a 6-A case was pending adjudication before the Collector (Civil Supplies) and that the proceedings could be completed as per law within a reasonable period.