Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 878
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Vemuluri Swamy Naidu, S/o.Satyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.10365 of 2020
Decided on : 22-06-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO
For the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 6-E - Jurisdiction regarding the release of seized vehicles - Writ of mandamus sought to challenge the illegality of seizing an auto rickshaw for illegal transportation of essential commodities without following prescribed procedures - Authorizing authority for interim custody is the Collector as per EC Act. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction - Court's lack of authority when essential commodities are seized pending confiscation proceedings - Judicial First Class Magistrate found competent to entertain petitions for custody when such proceedings have not been initiated. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owned an auto rickshaw seized for transporting illegally sourced PDS rice; the initial petitions for interim custody were returned based on lack of jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that, in absence of Section 6-A proceedings, the Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to hear the petition for interim custody.
Issues: Whether the Judicial Magistrate has the authority to entertain a custody petition in light of pending confiscation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Collector has authority under Section 6-E for interim custody unless such proceedings are initiated, allowing the petitioner a path to seek custody through the Magistrate.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The petitioner, owner of an auto rickshaw seized for transporting illegally sourced PDS rice, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the seizure was illegal and a direction to release the vehicle (!) .
- On May 27, 2020, authorities intercepted the vehicle at Kothuru Centre and found 700 Kgs of PDS rice being transported illegally, leading to the seizure of both the rice and the vehicle under Section 188 of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (!) .
- The petitioner initially sought interim custody from the District Collector, but the petition was rejected on the grounds that the case was booked under Section 7 (!) .
- Both the District Collector and the Judicial First Class Magistrate initially rejected the custody petitions, citing a lack of jurisdiction (!) .
- Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, bars courts, tribunals, or other authorities from making orders regarding seized essential commodities or vehicles if confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A are pending, vesting such authority solely with the Collector or State Government (!) .
- The Court noted that while the Collector has jurisdiction if Section 6-A proceedings are initiated, no such proceedings had been started in this case, only a crime case under Section 188 IPC was registered (!) .
- Since no Section 6-A proceedings were pending, the Court held that the Judicial First Class Magistrate was competent to entertain the petitioner's petition for interim custody under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the petitioner from being left without a remedy (!) .
- The writ petition was allowed, directing the Station House Officer of Alamuru Police Station to produce the seized auto rickshaw before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, within three days (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for mandamus regarding vehicle seizure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's analysis on section 6-e and jurisdiction. (Para 4) |
| 3. jurisdiction issues in petitions for vehicle custody. (Para 5) |
| 4. establishing authority of the district collector. (Para 6) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; orders for vehicle production. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
The petitioner seeks to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in seizing the petitioner’s Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP 05 TD 7201 in relation to Crime No.144 of 2020 of Alamuru Police Station, East Godavari District without following the procedure as contemplated under law as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to release the vehicle.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is the owner of Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP 05 TD 7201. On the early hours of 27.05.2020, the 2nd respondent along with his staff while checking the vehicles at Kothuru Centre, Alamuru Mandal, intercepted the aforesaid vehicle and on verification, found 700 Kgs of PDS rice was being illegally transported. He seized the essential commodity as well as the vehicle and prepared an occurrence report and basing on the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2020 of Alamuru Police Station under Section 188 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “EC Act”)
3. The petitioner who is the owner-cum-driver of the seized Auto Rickshaw submits that he filed a petition before the 3rd respondent for interim custody of the vehicle, but it was returned on the ground that the case was booked under Section 7 of EC Act and he has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 457 of Cr.PC before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru for release of the vehicle but the petition was returned on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
Hence, the writ petition.
4. Heard.
5. As per the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, both the District Collector, East Godavari District/3rd respondent and Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru have rejected the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
On hearing learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and on perusal of legal position, the present case falls under peculiar circumstances. As per Section 6 -E of the EC Act, when an essential commodity and conveyance used for carrying essential commodity were seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of EC Act, then, pending the confiscation proceedings under Section 6 -A, it is the Collector or the State Government concerned under Section 6 -C shall alone but not the Court or Tribunal or other authority, have the power to pass orders regarding possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. Section 6 -E reads thus:
Sec.6-E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases:-
Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6 -A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, 1[the State Government concerned under Section 6 -C] shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, 2[any Court, Tribunal or other authority] shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.]
6. Therefore, Section 6 -E engrafts a bar on Court, Tribunal or other authority to pass any order in relation to the es
