(V.V.S. Rao)

Sri Santhoshima Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Gadipally Village and Mandal, a firm, filed these two appeals aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16900 of 2009 and W.P.No.12805 of 2009 respectively. As the two matters along with another writ petition being W.P.No.14867 of 2009 were disposed of by a common order and the background of the case being the same, it is expedient to dispose of both the matters by common order. In this order, we refer to the parties as they are arrayed in W.P.No.12805 of 2009.

The petitioner firm is a trading rice mill. It obtained a Food Grain Licence (FGL), dated 17.11.2008 under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (hereafter called, Licensing Control Order). At the relevant time, it had capacity to mill 12.75 tonnes per hour. The licence requires the firm to comply with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the EC Act, for brevity), Licensing Control Order, the Andhra Pradesh Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (hereafter called, Levy Control Order), the conditions of licence and/or the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government from time to time. The petitioner asserts that on 17.06.2009, second respondent, namely, Joint Director (CS) inspected the petitioner’s rice mill. Deputy Tahsildar, Huzur Nagar, Revenue Inspector (Procurement), Suryapet and special squad members accompanied second respondent. Huge quantity of rice, paddy and broken rice was seized - 2942 quintals of BPT paddy, 26224 quintals of JJ Variety paddy, 34454 quintals of 1010 variety paddy, 550 quintals of BPT rice, 550 quintals of boiled rice, 360 quintals of rejected rice and 495 quintals of broken rice. In addition, three volumes of Form-B registers maintained for the period from 01.10.2008 to 16.06.2009 were also seized. The stocks seized were handed over to Pabba Nageshwar Rao, Managing Partner of M/s.Mahalakshmi Rice Company, Suryapet. In their Panchnama drafted on that day, it was alleged that the petitioner contravened and violated clauses 9, 12 and 16 of Levy Control Order and clause 10(1) of Licensing Control Order. Within a week after search and seizure operation on the basis of the report submitted by second respondent, on 23.06.2009, the District Collector issued notice under Section 6-B of the EC Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the entire stock seized should not be confiscated under Section 6-A of the EC Act. Two days thereafter, by proceedings No.CS1/1017/09, dated 25.06.2009, first respondent, namely, the District Collector passed orders under Section 6-A(2) of the EC Act directing third respondent, namely, District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (DM, for brevity) to sell 550 quintals of BPT variety paddy by converting into rice through special counters of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District and Nalgonda for public consumption at the rates prescribed by the Government. A direction was also issued to park the recovered money in revenue deposit till final orders are passed under Section 6-A of the EC Act. Further, the District Collector also directed petitioner to deliver 1971 quintals out of seized quantity of BPT variety paddy 2942 quintals to special counters of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District and Nalgonda simultaneously on milling under the supervision of the DM. Aggrieved by the seizure, petitioner filed W.P.No.12805 of 2009 corresponding to writ appeal No.47 of 2010.

After initiating action under Section 6-A of the EC Act, third respondent, namely, Joint Director (CS), by communication No.CS6/2370/2009, dated 11.08.2009 issued notice to show cause as to why their FGL should not be cancelled and debarred from participation of mill levy operations for violating the provisions of Licensing Control Order. Challenging the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.16900 of 2008. In the meanwhile, alleging that respondents stopped issuing permits for exporting b