IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Collector's findings that no offence was made under the Essential Commodities Act, dismissing the petitioner's claims as unfounded.

JUDGMENT :

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.)

This is a petition filed purportedly in public interest highlighting the inaction on the part of the official respondents in not taking action against M/s. Balaji Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd./respondent No.10 herein (in short, ‘BWC’), who is alleged to have made an effort to divert 43,500 kgs of PDS rice, meant for supply through Public Distribution System, for selling the same illegally in the open market.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the BWC owns and operates 3 godowns, which are also used by the A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited/respondent No.3 herein to store its PDS rice. It is stated that, on 29.03.2021, the staff of the Warehouse informed the officials of the Central Warehousing Corporation/respondent No.4 (in short, ‘CWC’) that the stock position of the PDS rice of respondent No.3 was nil and the said respondent No.3 did not see the need for engaging the warehousing godowns to stock PDS rice any further. Upon receipt of the said information from the officers of the Warehousing, the CWC de-hired the said godown w.e.f. 30.03.2021.

3. It is stated that, based upon some information, the officials of the Vigilance Wing of the Civil Supplies Department as also the respondent No.3 raided the said godown on 30.03.2021 in the presence of 5 Panchas wherein it was found that 43,500 Kgs of PDS rice was sought to be recycled for sale in the open market. The PDS rice was stated to be loaded in a lorry after transferring the same from jute gunny bags to plastic bags. It is stated that the lorry along with stocks were confiscated.

4. The case of the petitioner is that, although the stocks were seized, a case ought to have been registered under Section 6-A and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which was not registered. Further, it is stated that proceedings had to be initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, which was also not done.

5. Allegations are levelled in the writ petition that the official respondents are trying to hush up the entire matter to protect the officials of the CWC as also the 10th respondent. It is in the background of the aforementioned facts that a mandamus was sought against the officials of the CWC as also the 10th respondent to take action in accordance with law.

6. The Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District/respondent No.5 herein in his counter affidavit has taken a stand that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is without any legal basis. It is stated that immediately after the rice was confiscated on 30.03.2021, a case under Section 6-A of the Act, 1955, came to be filed by the Assistant Supply Officer, Nellore Urban, on 31.03.2021, against the Managing Staff of the Balaji Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. as also the owner-cum-driver of the lorry bearing No.AP16 TY 8991 and not only that, it is stated that, a detailed order came to be passed on 17.08.2021 by the Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District, after hearing all the concerned. It is stated that in its order, dated 17.08.2021, it has been found that no offence was made out under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the respondents and therefore there was no ground or material to exercise the powers under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

7. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that the moment Section 6-A proceedings of the Act culminate in an order of discharge, of the alleged accused persons, there would be no basis for the State Government to proceed under the provisions of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, empowering the State to issue Orders of Detention as the requisite satisfaction which is otherwise required under the aforementioned Act would be missing.