Dommaraju Vinay vs. The State Of A.P.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of confiscating the seized stock to the Government was passed without any notice and application of mind. The Court found that the 2nd respondent, contrary to the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, could not have straight away passed a confiscation order without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. The Court had previously suspended the impugned confiscation order and directed the release of the seized stock on furnishing immovable property security. At the final hearing, the Court noted that the stock had already been released to the petitioner, subject to the result of the Section 6-A proceedings. The Court set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the 2nd respondent to conclude the Section 6-A proceedings expeditiously within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, a rice mill owner with GST registration, filed a writ petition challenging an order by the 2nd respondent (likely a civil supplies authority) dated 07.06.2021, directing the disposal of 105 Qtls of seized raw rice through public auction. The petitioner's lorry, carrying raw rice purchased from farmers and destined for Chennai, was intercepted on 04.05.2021, and the stock was seized on the suspicion of being PDS rice. The petitioner had submitted a petition on 10.05.2021 with supporting documents to prove the origin of the rice, but this was not considered before the confiscation order was passed. The lorry was released upon payment of Rs. 25,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of confiscation of seized stock of raw rice passed by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the orders made thereunder? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the confiscation order was illegal and arbitrary because no samples were taken, no analysis report was obtained to confirm the rice as PDS rice, and there are no transport restrictions for paddy and rice. Crucially, the petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent passed the confiscation order without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State.