Sai Traders, rep. by its Proprietor vs Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, Vijayawada

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(AP) 673

2006 (4) ALT 758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
C.V. RAMULU, J.
Sri Sai Traders, rep. by its Proprietor and others- Petitioner
v.
Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, Vijayawada and others - Respondent
W.P. Nos.4797 and 11572 of 2006
Decided on 22-6-2006.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P. No.4797 of 2006.
Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.11572/06.
G.P. for Civil Supplies for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Headnote:ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, Sec.6-A - A.P. STATE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CONTROL ORDER, 2001, Secs. 2(16), (20) & 16 - G.O.Ms.No.79, dt.29-6-2005 - G.S.R.No. 104(E), dt. 15-2-2002, issued by Government of India - Rice seized from petitioners and initiated proceedings u/Sec.6-A of E.C Act on allegation that said rice ment for PDS and was block marketed.
       Contention that pursuant to Central Government Order, dt.15-2-2002, Government of A.P., issued orders rescinding A.P. Paddy and Rice (Requisition of Stocks), Order, 1966 and therefore, absolutely no restrictions on movement of rice in A.P State and in view of clarification of Commissioner of Civil Supplies, even assuming that petitioners purchased FFW and PDS rice, only action to be taken is to initiate criminal proceedings.
       “Scheduled commodity” - “Public Distribution System” - Rice is one of scheduled commodities, though not an essential commodity under Control Orders - State Government may have control over rice required for PDS as contemplated under Control Order, 2001 and nothing more than that - By order 15-2-2002 rice has been taken out of Control Order as essential commodity - As per clarification of Commissioner Civil Supplies, criminal action alone has to be taken against rice millers who indulge in purchase of FFW rice and in so far as F.P shop dealers concerned, they are governed by conditions of authorisation issued under Control Order, 2001.
       In this case, allegation that petitioners are in possession of PDS rice which is a schedule commodity but not essential commodity to invoke provisions of E.C Act - Hence impugned action of respondents in invoking provisions of Sec.6-A and seizing rice of petitioners is without any authority of law and illegal - Writ petitions, allowed.

ORDER

In these two Writ Petitions, common questions of fact and law arise for consideration; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common Order.

2. In both these cases, the rice held by the petitioners was seized by conducting panchanamas on the allegation that the said rice is meant for Public Distribution System (PDS) and it was black marketed; therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act). The Writ Petitions are tiled seeking to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the rice and initiating the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act as arbitrary and illegal.

3. Detailed counter affidavits have been tiled by respondents 1 and 4 in W.P. No. 4797 of 2006 denying the allegations made by the petitioners and supporting the impugned action of the respondents.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Admittedly, the rice was taken out of the Essential Commodities Act by way of an Order passed by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, New Delhi in G.S.R.104 (E), dated 15-2-2002, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act. However, the learned Government Pleader submitted that nothing in the said Order dated 15-2-2002 shall affect the operation 52 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government and Orders of the State Government issued in pursuance thereof. Thus, according to the learned Government Pleader, the rice is though taken out from the list of essential commodities, but the rice distributed under Public Distribution System has not been exempted from the application of the Act. Clause 6 of the said Order reads as under:

"6. Nothing contained in this Order shall affect the operation of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government and orders of the State Governments issued in pursuance thereof."

6. Whereas, learned counsel for petitioners strenuously contended that once the rice is taken out of the Act, the only course left over for the respondents is to invoke either criminal proceedings or any other provision of law applicable in this regard. It is also their contention that in pursuance of the Central Governments Order dated 15-2-2002, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Governmental Order in G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 29-6-2005 rescinding the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966. Therefore, absolutely, there is no restriction on movement of rice in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In fact, the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, rescinding the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966 issued in G.O.Ms. NO.2121, Food and Agriculture (CS.lV) Department, dated 29-6-1966, is subject to the following conditions:

"Provided that such rescission shall not affect:-

(a) the previous operation of the said order on anything duly done or suffered there under;

(b) by any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said order; or

(d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding, on remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the relevant said order has not been rescinded."

7. From a reading of the above, it would indicate that absolutely there is no restriction on movement of rice in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the authorities were supposed to take action against those cases of violation under the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Reguisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966, but not by invoking the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act. Admittedly, in these two cases, the seizure was effected after 29-6-2005 i.e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document