Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
Lagisetty Ramaiah - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-12-71
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - CONFISCATION OF RICE - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - DELEGATION OF POWERS - SECTION 6-B, 6-C - ANDHRA PRADESH DISTRICT COLLECTORS POWERS (DELEGATION) ACT, 1961 - SECTION 3 - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 409(2).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted a license to carry on business in foodgrains on 22nd January 1970. On 27th June 1970, the Deputy Superintendent of Police seized 714 quintals of rice from the petitioners' rice mill. The District Revenue Officer issued a notice under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act to the petitioners to show cause why the rice should not be confiscated. The Collector of Kurnool confiscated the rice on the ground that the petitioners had carried on business in rice without a license and contravened the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement, Levy, and Restriction of Sale Order. The petitioners appealed to the District and Sessions Judge, who transferred the appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, who confirmed the order of confiscation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the District Revenue Officer was competent to initiate proceedings under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act and that the Collector was competent to pass the final order of confiscation. The court also held that the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal, as the District and Sessions Judge was the only judicial authority appointed by the State Government to hear appeals under section 6-C of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Revenue Officer was competent to initiate proceedings under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Whether the Collector was competent to pass the final order of confiscation. 3. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Andhra Pradesh District Collectors Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961, empowers the District Revenue Officer to exercise the powers of the Collector under the Essential Commodities Act. 2. There is no prohibition in the Act preventing the Collector from exercising his statutory powers in cases where the proceedings have been initiated by his authorized subordinate officers. 3. Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act provides that a person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may appeal to any judicial authority appointed by the State Government. 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has appointed the District and Sessions Judges of each district as the judicial authority to whom appeals may be preferred under section 6-C of the Act. 5. Section 409(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows a Sessions Judge to make over appeals to an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge, does not apply to appeals under other statutes like the Essential Commodities Act. 6. Therefore, the District and Sessions Judge is the only judicial authority competent to hear appeals under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, and the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed the District and Sessions Judge to re-entertain the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law.
( 2 ) TWO points were raised before me by sri Ayyapureddy learned Counsel for the petitioners: (1) The notice to show cause against confiscation having been issued by the district Revenue Officer the Collector was incompetent to order the confiscation of the rice. (2) The District and Sessions Judge alone was competent and the Addl. Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal. It has now been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision case No. 319 of 1970 that by virtue of the notification issued under the Andhra pradesh District Collectors Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 a District Revenue officer is competent to exercise the powers of the Collector under the Essential commodities Act. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings by the District revenue Officer cannot be questioned. The question is whether the District revenue Officer having initiated the proceedings the Collector could pass the final order of confiscation. In support of his submission that the proceeding initiated by one officer cannot be disposed of by another officer the learned counsel relied on the decision of Shar- fuddin Ahmed and A. D. V. Reddy, JJ. , in Adapa Suryanarayana, In re. , 1. (1970)2an. W. R. 303 That was . a case in which the proceeding Was initiated by the Collector but the final order of confiscation was made by the district Revenue Officer. The learned judges held that the action of the District revenue Officer was in contravention of the second proviso to section 3 of the andhra Pradesh District Collectors powers (Delegation) Act, which is in the following terms: "provided further that where in respect of any case the District Collector exercises his powers the joint Collector or other officer authorised under this saction shall not exercise his powers in respect of the same case".
( 3 ) THE present case is a converse case. While the Andhra Pradesh District collectors Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961, prohibits the exercise of the powers of the District Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
