IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.
P. Venkata Konda Reddy, Kurnool District & Others - Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Tahsildar, Nandyal, Kurnool District, Rep.By PP. - Respondent
Crl.R.C.Nos: 561, 784, 587, 586, 585, 584, 581, 579, 566, 562, 564 of 2011 and 1188 of 2009
Decided On : 11-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Essential Commodities Act, 1951 - Section 6-A and 6-B - Confiscation of paddy - Orders of confiscation confirmed by Principal Sessions Judge challenged - Confiscation of 10% of excess stock upheld, but procedural irregularities noted - Non-issuance of statutory notice and failure to conduct inquiry as mandated under Section 6-B led to invalidation of confiscation orders. (Paras 1, 5, 18)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice require issuance of notice and opportunity to be heard before confiscation - Non-compliance with statutory requirements renders the confiscation invalid. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The revisions were filed against confiscation orders for excess stock of paddy stored by farmers, with claims of procedural violations in the confiscation process. (Paras 1, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned District Collector failed to issue proper notices and conduct the inquiry as required, leading to material irregularities in the confiscation orders. (Paras 18)
Issues: Whether the confiscation orders were valid given the alleged procedural irregularities and non-compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to issue notices and conduct a proper inquiry as mandated by Section 6-B of the E.C. Act invalidated the confiscation orders, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice. (Paras 12, 18)
Result: Revisions allowed, and the confiscation orders set aside.
COMMON ORDER:
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.
The revisions (12) twelve in number have been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C .,’) challenging the orders passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool whereby and whereunder the orders of the confiscation passed by the learned District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1951 (for short ‘the E.C. Act.’) are confirmed. 10% of the excess stock of paddy stored in M/s. Kothapalli Farmers Ware House, Kothapalli Metta Village was confiscated while releasing 90% of the excess stock of paddy to the farmers with a direction to them to dispose the same in the open market within one week from the date of receipt of the order.
2. All the revisions have arisen out of the same or similar causes of action, therefore, they are heard and decided by this common order.
3. Briefly stated, the Deputy Tahsildar, Nandyal, Kurnool District, on receipt of credible information that some of the Benami traders of the surrounding areas of Nandyal were hoarding huge stocks of paddy at Kothapalli Farmers Warehouse, Kothapalli Metta Village, Nandyal Mandal by purchasing paddy from the ryots, the Deputy Tahsildar along with officials of the Vigilance and Enforcement had inspected the premises of Kothapalli Farmers Warehouses, Kothapalli Metta Village on 18.06.2009 and noticed that the proprietor of the Warehouse was conducting business in the premises. On verification of the premises, the inspection team noticed that 52,845 bags of paddy containing 75 Kgs each totaling 39,633.75 qtls were in the possession of the proprietor of A.V. Rural Warehouse, Allagadda. On physical verification of stocks available on the ground and when compared to the stock register, warehouse receipt, tripartite agreement pattadar pass books etc., it was noticed that the Benami traders hoarded the entire paddy in the name of 175 ryots and caused much inconvenience to the everyday consumer, creating artificial scarcity in the open market. It was felt that all the revisionists had contravened provisions of Clause 2(K) and Clause 10(I) and 18(2)(b) of AP Scheduled Commodities and Dealers (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 2008 read with GOMs.No.49 Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies Department dated 25.11.2008 and Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act.’ The Deputy Tahsildar seized the available stocks of paddy and reported the matter to the learned District Collector and District Magistrate for taking necessary action against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act’.
4. The learned District Collector ordered for interim disposal of the seized stock in the interest of the public to control the rising prices. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Nandyal, was authorized to dispose of the seized stock through public auction. The learned District Collector had appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry against the farmers by getting relevant documents and out of 175 total depositors/farmers 140 farmers had appeared to the inquiry on 01.07.2009 at the premises of the godown and produced the relevant records and other evidence viz., pattadar pass books etc., to prove themselves as agriculturists and their extent of land and yielding particulars. Based on the details compiled by the prescribed limit fixed @ 30 qtls per acre, a quantity of 512.85 as shown in the relevant Colmn No.14 was confiscated by the government by releasing the remaining quantity to the farmers who attended for the inquiry.
5. Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned District Collect had passed the impugned orders without following the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ which mandates that under the report submitted by the respondent, the learned District Collector ought to have issued a notice calling for the objections from the respective farmers and ought
Confiscation orders under the Essential Commodities Act are invalid if statutory notice and inquiry requirements are not met, violating principles of natural justice.
Confiscation orders under the Essential Commodities Act are invalid if the statutory procedure, including notice and opportunity to be heard, is not followed.
Confiscation of Vehicle - An order of confiscation has very serious civil consequences for person whose property is confiscated. Every citizen has a right to his property, guaranteed by Article 300-A....
An acquittal in criminal trials does not invoke the compensation provisions of the Essential Commodities Act if the statutory pre-conditions for such compensation are unmet.
The court reaffirmed the importance of following procedural safeguards in administrative actions under the Essential Commodities Act, particularly the necessity of notice and opportunity to be heard ....
An application for release of a seized vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. during pendency of confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is not maintainable before the M....
The court established that an application for release of a seized vehicle during the pendency of confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of The Essential Commodities Act is not maintainable before ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'rice' is considered an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and is subject to seizure and confiscation under Sectio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.