Confiscation orders under the Essential Commodities Act are invalid if the statutory procedure, including notice and opportunity to be heard, is not followed.

COMMON ORDER:

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 to have framed char