P Rathik vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated June 21, 2021, directing the sale of the seized stock through public auction was contrary to the provisions of Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act and was therefore illegal. While the court did not explicitly rule on the illegality and arbitrariness of the initial seizure of the vehicle and rice, it stated that this aspect would be dealt with by the appropriate authority in the proceedings initiated under the Essential Commodities Act. In the interest of justice, the Court directed the respondents to release the seized stock to the petitioner upon the petitioner furnishing local third-party immovable property security for the value of the stock, by executing a personal bond in favour of the appropriate authority, strictly adhering to the Registration Act and Stamp Act. The release of the stock would be subject to further orders in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the legality of the seizure itself was deferred to the E.C. Act proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, a registered trader in food grains with a GST number, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of his vehicle and 160 quintals of super fine Hamsa rice. The seizure occurred on May 1, 2021, when the vehicle was intercepted by the 4th respondent. The grounds for seizure were that the rice was being transported illegally, suspected to be PDS rice. A case was registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities (E.C.) Act. The 3rd respondent reported to the 2nd respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act. The 2nd respondent subsequently passed an order directing the sale of the seized stock through public auction, with the proceeds to be kept in revenue deposit pending the disposal of the Section 6-A case. The petitioner sought the release of the seized rice and vehicle.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle and rice, and the initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, were illegal and arbitrary, considering the petitioner's contention that the rice was super fine Hamsa rice and not PDS rice, and that he possessed a sale bill, e-way bill, and permit for notified agricultural produce. 2. Whether the order passed by the 2nd respondent directing the sale of the seized stock through public auction was contrary to the provisions of Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary as the rice was legitimately purchased and transported with proper documentation, and it was not PDS rice. He contended that the order for public auction of the seized rice was contrary to Section 6-A(2) of the E.C. Act. The petitioner expressed willingness to furnish personal bond with immovable property security for the release of the stock. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State. It notes that the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies was heard, and with the consent of both parties, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage.