Axis Bank Ltd. , Rural Lending Department vs State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(AP) 61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A.V Sesha Sai, J.
M/s. Axis Bank Ltd., Rural Lending Department - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others - Respondents
W.P Nos. 5778, 6127, 6129 and 12673 of 2016
Decided On : 28-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.B Ramanna Dora

Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Essential Commodities Act - Section 6-A - Control Order - Section 2(K) - Judgment rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal dated filed by Axis Bank Limited prays for a direction to Respondents authorities to return the goods covered by Criminal Appeal prays for a direction to Respondents authorities to release the seized stock of as per the directions in Criminal Appeal dated fate of depends obviously on the outcome - Alleged violation of clause of the A.P Scheduled Commodities Dealers Order - District Collector after calling for the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated passed an order bearing dated ordering confiscation of of the seized stock on the ground that the was stored in huge quantity at National Collateral Management Services Limited by unscrupulous traders without holding Form - Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal and the learned Judge rendered common judgment dated allowing - Held, learned Principal Sessions Judge that the record of the Collector (Civil Supplies) demonstrates that Axis Bank furnished the details of the farmers who pledged the goods and borrowed the loans along with the photostat copies of the letters. It is also important to note that the District Collector also overlooked completely the claim filed by the Bank and the documents filed by the Bank on 2.7.2015 pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P No. 19183 of 2015 dated 6.6.2015 filed by Axis Bank. No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why the said claim of the Bank was completely ignored, despite the above said orders of this Court - Learned Principal Sessions Judge also took note of the stocks stored by farmers and their particulars. On thorough analysis of the entire material the learned Principal Sessions Judge came to a categoric conclusion that without any evidence as to clandestine business, the District Collector arrived at the impugned finding. - Learned Sessions Judge also relied on the judgments - Collector and District Magistrate - impugned is patently perverse and suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction rit in the nature of Certiorari cannot be issued. In the instant case, this Court does not find any such contingencies - Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any traces of doubt to hold that there are absolutely no merits in W.P Nos. 6127 and 6129 of 2016 and are liable to be dismissed - Court holds that the unofficial Respondents 1 to 11 in W.P No. 6129 of 2016 do not fall under the definition of Dealer under Section 2-K of the Control Order, 2008. In view of the finding on W.P Nos. 6127 and 6129 of 2016, W.P Nos. 5778 and 12673 of 2016 are liable to be allowed - W.P Nos. 6127 and 6129 of 2016 are dismissed and W.P Nos. 5778 and 12673 of 2016 are allowed - Ordered Accordingly.

ORDER :

A.V SESHA SAI, J.

Since all these writ petitions are inter-related, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions, by way of this Common order.

2. W.P Nos. 6127 and 6129 of 2016, filed by State and two others, challenge the common judgment rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 138 and 146 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 W.P No. 5778 of 2016, filed by Axis Bank Limited, prays for a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 authorities to return the goods covered by Criminal Appeal Nos. 138 and 146 of 2015. W.P No. 12673 of 2016, prays for a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 authorities to release the seized stock of Soyabean as per the directions in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 The fate of W.P Nos. 5778 and 12673 of 2016 depends obviously on the outcome of W.P Nos. 6127 and 6129 of 2016.

3. Followed by a raid conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Supply Officer, Adilabad, the District Collector, Adilabad initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act on the ground of alleged violation of clause 2-K(2) of the A.P Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short, hereafter referred to as Control Order). The District Collector, after calling for the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad dated 25.7.2015, passed an order bearing No. CS6/488/2015 dated 3.9.2015, ordering confiscation of 90% of the seized stock on the ground that the Soyabean was stored in huge quantity at National Collateral Management Services Limited by unscrupulous traders without holding Form-B licence as required under Control Order, 2008.

4. The above said order was challenged before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 138 and 146 of 2015 and the learned Judge rendered common judgment dated 23.11.2015, allowing Crl.A No. 138 of 2015 in full and Crl.A No. 146 of 2015 in part, setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the District Collector and further directing the appellants 1 and 2 in Crl.A No. 146 of 2015 to pay penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each to Government. The validity of the said judgment is under challenge in W.P Nos. 6127 and 6129 of 2016.

5. Heard and perused the material available before the Court.

6. Submissions/contentions of the learned Government Pleader:

(1) The judgment rendered by the leaned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.A Nos. 138 and 146 of 2015 is erroneous, contrary to law and contrary to the material available on record.

(2) The impugned judgment is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Control Order, 2008 in general and clause 2-K(2) in particular.

(3) Since the order of the District Collector dated 3.9.2015, ordering confiscation is a reasoned order, the learned Principal Sessions Judge grossly erred in disturbing the same.

7. Submissions/contentions of Sri. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel:

(1) There is no illegality, nor there exists any infirmity, nor there is any perversity in the impugned judgment and in the absence of the same, the petitioners in W.P Nos. 6127 and 6129 of 2016 are not entitled for any relief nor the said Writ Petitions are maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2) The order of confiscation passed by the District Collector on 3.9.2015 is highly illegal, arbitrary and full of assumptions and presumptions and completely bereft of clear findings as per the relevant provisions of law.

(3) The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 25.7.2015 was not furnished to the persons effected, as such, the order of the District Collector is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice.

(4) Since the Respondents 1 to 11 in W.P No. 6129 of 2016 are Agriculturists, they do not fall under the definition of dealer as per Section 2(K) of the Control Order. The very initiation of action by the District Collector under Section 6-A of the Es

Click Here to Read the rest of this document