COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

1. This is a reference made by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23107 of 2007, for an authoritative pronouncement to answer the question as to whether the seizure of 166 bags of rice (each 50 Kgs) belonging to the petitioner by the third respondent herein viz. Sub Inspector of police, Rural, Proddatur, Kadapa district, is legal or not.

2. Similarly, the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.18097 of 2007, made reference on the ground that the view expressed by another Single Judge would require reconsideration.

3. Writ Petition No.23107 of 2007 is filed, inter alia, contending that the third respondent-Sub Inspector of Police, Rural, Proddatur, Kadapa district, has no jurisdiction and he misused the power in seizing the rice of petitioner; that by virtue of notification issued by the Government of India dated 15.02.2002 and further memo dated 27.3.2003 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, there are no restrictions as regards to stock or transport of paddy and rice, and as such, the seizure is illegal and without jurisdiction. The allegation of the respondents is that the petitioner purchased 166 bags of rice meant for public from the dealer of Public Distribution System. It is alleged that on 24.5.2007, the third respondent raided the petitioner's premises bearing no.3/365 and seized the 166 bags of rice. The third respondent registered a case in crime no.58/2007 under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4. Whereas, Writ Petition No.18093 of 2007 is filed to declare the memo dated 19.7.2007 issued by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.70,256/- for a period of 3 years from any Nationalised Bank, for considering release of the stocks seized, as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential direction to the respondent no.2 to release the 70 quintals of rice to the petitioner without insisting upon bank guarantee.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that by virtue of notification dated 15.02.2002 issued by the Government of India, there are no restrictions as to stock or transport of paddy and rice; that if any person or dealer is indulging in purchase of rice meant for Food for Work or Public Distribution System, the only course left open to the authorities is to initiate proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). In support of his contention, he placed strong reliance on a decision in Sheela Srinivas v. District Collector, Karimnagar & another.

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short, 'Levy Order, 1984'), is promulgated by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, and clause 14 thereof, the Enforcement Officer is empowered to search and seize any essential commodity; that there are certain restrictions imposed by the Levy Order, 1984; that this Order is on the Statute Book as on today; that the notification issued by the Government of India dated 15.02.2002 was subsequently amended, and so the notification which was relied upon by the petitioner would not affect the operation of the Levy Order issued by the State Government; therefore, the Enforcement Officer is authorized to search and seize any essential commodity, if there is any contravention; that the Levy Order, 1984 has not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

7. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the points for determination are - i) Whether rice or paddy is an essential commodity requiring any licence or permit to stock or transport; ii) Which authority is empowered or competent to search and seize the paddy or rice from any premises, in case of any violations of any provisions of law or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document