M.O.I Commodities INDIA PVT.LTD vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that it was not appropriate for the High Court to adjudicate the dispute when a petition for the release of seized goods was already pending before the statutory authority, the District Collector. Recognizing that the seized white rice was a perishable commodity and would lose its value if kept in custody, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent, the District Collector, to dispose of the petitioner's claim for release of the seized goods in accordance with the law within one week from the date of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it was not touching upon the various contentions raised in the writ affidavit, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise them before the statutory authority. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Facts

The petitioner, a private limited company involved in import and export, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of 22,450 bags (11,225 quintals) of raw rice by the Assistant Supply Officer, Nellore Urban (3rd respondent). The seizure occurred on February 29, 2020, from a godown at Krishnapatnam Port, based on suspicion that the rice was Public Distribution System (PDS) rice. The petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary, violating the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The petitioner had purchased the rice from SMR Trading Company, which supplied it from various millers and traders, and intended to export it. A petition for the release of the seized goods was pending before the District Collector (2nd respondent). The petitioner also noted a previous writ petition (W.P.No.4842 of 2020) filed against interference by Customs and Excise officers during the export process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of 11,225 quintals of raw rice by the Assistant Supply Officer, Nellore Urban, was illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law or jurisdiction, contrary to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018? The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary, as the rice was intended for export and they possessed a valid GST registration. They relied on the fact that the goods were perishable and their value would diminish while in custody. The revenue or State's contentions were not explicitly recorded in the judgment regarding this specific issue, beyond the allegations of violation of specific clauses of the Control Order.