Aftab Ahmed Khan vs. State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Aftab Ahmed Khan, proprietor of NA Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in seizing 408.65 quintals of wheat and 3.50 quintals of rice on February 13, 2024. The seizure was conducted under a panchanama by Respondent No. 4 (Assistant Civil Supplies Officer) and led to proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Subsequently, the police registered an FIR No. 46 of 2024 on February 16, 2024, under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner claims to possess valid licenses for food processing. The respondents argued that the petitioner had not approached the competent authority for the disposal of the proceedings and release of the seized goods, making the writ petition not maintainable.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2 (District Collector (CS)) to dispose of the 6-A proceedings initiated against the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court further directed the respondents not to sell the seized wheat (408.65 qtls) and rice (3.50 qtls) belonging to the petitioner until the disposal of the 6-A proceedings. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality or arbitrariness of the seizure itself, but rather focused on ensuring a timely resolution of the ongoing proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that when statutory proceedings are pending, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the concerned authority to expedite the disposal of those proceedings, while ensuring the status quo of the seized goods is maintained until such disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner's stock of wheat and rice under a panchanama dated February 13, 2024, is illegal, null, void, and arbitrary, warranting a direction for their release? (Question of law and fact, relating to seizure powers and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The seizure was illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioner sought the release of the seized goods, highlighting his possession of valid licenses. Respondents' contention: The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of approaching the competent authority for the disposal of the 6-A proceedings and the release of the seized goods.