L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Rice Miller. He challenges the seizure of various quantities of paddy and rice effected by the 2nd respondent through Panchanama dated 10-10-2002. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, who has effected the seizure, has no jurisdiction and there was gross misuse of power on his part in effecting the seizure, which resulted in dislocation of the functioning of the mill and the business.

( 2 ) WHEN the writ petition came up for admission on 24-10-2002, the learned government Pleader for Civil Supplies has taken time to obtain instructions and to produce the records. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has argued the matter on the basis of the instructions and placed the relevant record before this Court.

( 3 ) THROUGH the Panchanama dated 10-10-2002, the 2nd respondent has effected seizure of 549 bags paddy weighing 384. 30 quintals and 440. 70 quintals of rice. The petitioner alleges that in view of the notification issued by the Government of india on 15-2-2002 and the Memo dated 27-3-2002, issued by the Government of andhra Pradesh, there are no restrictions as to stock or movement of the paddy and rice and, as such, the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction on the face of it. The basis on which the seizure was effected, is that certain quantity of rice, which was released at the Mandal Level Stocking Point, meant for Food for Work, was alleged to have been diverted to the Mill of the petitioner and, in that view of the matter, in exercise of power under A. P. State Public distribution System Control Order 2001 (for short "the Control Order ), the seizure was effected. The learned Government Pleader tries to sustain the seizure on the basis of the provisions of the said Control Order.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that with the issuance of notification dated 15-2-2002 by the Central Government and the corresponding Memo dated 27-3-2002 by the state Government; there are no restrictions as to stocking and movement of the paddy and rice in the State. It was in this context that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies issued proceedings dated 12-8-2002 stating that even where any Rice Miller is found to have indulged purchasing rice meant for food for work, the only course open is to initiate proceedings under the Code of criminal Procedure.

( 5 ) THE Control Order deals exclusively with the issuance of authorization and regulation of the activities in the fair price shops. The definition of schedule commodity under Clause 2 (16) reads as under: "schedule Commodity" means any commodity specified in the Schedule to this Order, which is supplied by the state Government to any authorized fair price shop or establishment for issue to the Consumers". It is true in the schedule to the Control order, rice and paddy are included. However, it is only such quantity of rice and paddy "which is supplied by the State government to any authorized fair price shop or establishment for issue to the consumers" that can be dealt with under the Control Order. The power of seizure conferred under Clause 16 is only as regards stocks held by establishments or shops. For establishments, to come within the fold of the power of seizure under Clause 16, it needs to be declared specifically by the State government or the Collector, for the purpose of this Order under Clause 2 (11 ). Nothing is placed before this Court to show that the rice mills were declared as establishments. Even if it is presumed that such a declaration is made, the same runs contrary to the notification issued by the Government of india.

( 6 ) AT any rate, it is not the case of the respondents that the paddy and rice were supplied by the Government to the petitioner for distribution to the Public. There was absolutely no jurisdiction or justification for the respondents in seizing that stock.

( 7 ) THE basis on which the seizure was effected was that about 305 quintals of rice meant for Food for Work was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document