IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.
Sri Shanmukhi Traders – Appellant
Versus
Collector (CS), Medak District – Respondent
W.P. No. 23826 of 2009
Decided On : 30-04-2021
RICE - Essential Commodity - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 2-A, Section 3, Section 5, Control Order, 2016 - The court considered the issue of whether 'rice' is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and liable for seizure and confiscation under Section 6-A for contravention of Clause 17(e) of the Control Order, 2016. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and the Control Order, 2016, and concluded that 'rice' is an essential commodity and is liable for seizure and confiscation under Section 6-A for contravention of Clause 17(e) of the Control Order, 2016.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, including agriculturists and rice dealers, were involved in the cultivation, purchase, and sale of rice. Their rice stocks were seized by the authorities, and they were accused of illegal possession of PDS rice and transporting rice without proper documents. The petitioners challenged the actions of the authorities, arguing that rice and paddy are not essential commodities and that the proceedings initiated against them were illegal and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that 'rice' is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and is liable for seizure and confiscation under Section 6-A for contravention of Clause 17(e) of the Control Order, 2016. The court also held that the petitioners involved in purchasing PDS rice from card holders were liable for criminal action and penalties as per the Control Order, 2016.
Issues: The main issue was whether 'rice' is an essential commodity and whether the actions of the authorities in seizing the rice stocks and initiating proceedings against the petitioners were legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Control Order, 2016, which led to the finding that 'rice' is an essential commodity and the petitioners were liable for the actions taken by the authorities.
Final Decision: The court allowed some of the writ petitions, dismissing others, and canceled the security furnished by the petitioners for the release of stocks and vehicles. The court clarified that the seized rice's nature and the criminal proceedings would be examined by the competent authority and the criminal court.
ORDER :
1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is common, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. As per the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, it could be seen that some of the petitioners are agriculturists, and their claim is that they are cultivating paddy in their fields, and after harvest, converting the same into rice, and selling them in the open markets. Some of the petitioners are dealing in the business of purchasing paddy and converting the same into rice, and selling them in the markets. In that process, while they were transporting rice to the markets, the rice alongwith respective vehicles, were seized by respondent-authorities, and in some writ petitions, rice was seized from the godowns. The main allegation in all the writ petitions, except in W.P. No. 23826 of 2009, is that the petitioners are in illegal possession of PDS rice, and that they have purchased the said PDS rice from the card holders. In W.P. No. 23826 of 2009, the allegation is that the petitioner has been transporting rice without proper and valid documents, and hence the respondents have seized the same.
3. After seizure, FIRs under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were registered, and the investigations/trials are pending Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were also initiated, and show-cause notices under Section 6-B of the Act were also issued and in some cases, confiscation orders also have been passed.
4. Assailing the same, the present writ petitions have been filed, relying on Removal of (Licensing requirements, Stock limits and Movement Restrictions) of Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002, issued by the Central Government in G.S.R. 104(E) dated 15.2.2002 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act, and also the subsequent order dated 29.9.2016 issued by the Central Government vide GSR No. 929(E) in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Act, and in super-session of the Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002, viz. the Removal of Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions of Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2016, contending that as per Clause 3 of the order dated 29.5.2016, any dealer may freely buy, stock sell, transport, distribute, dispose, acquire, use or consume, any quantity of rice, and that no permit or licence is required therefor And that ‘rice’ and ‘paddy’ are not essential commodities, and hence initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act is illegal and arbitrary.
5. Counter-affidavits have been filed in the writ petitions, the tenor of which, apart from disputing the claim of the petitioners on merits, and factual aspects, is that since the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, it is open to the petitioners to raise all the contentions in the said proceedings, and that in cases where confiscation orders were passed, it is open to them to file appeals under Section 6-C of the Act and as disputed questions of facts are involved, writ petitions cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With these grounds inter-alia, the writ petitions are sought to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned Counsel Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, Sri A. Prabbhakar Rao, Sri K. Venumadhav, Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, Sri T. Sujan Kumar, Sri K. Rama Krishna, Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav, Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Ms. K. Hemalatha, Sri K. Srinivas, Sri Ch. Ravinder, Sri T. Jayant Jaisooryan, Sri Babuji Tenneti, Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Sri S. Viplav Simha Reddy, Ms C. Sunitha Kuman, Sri P. Shashi Kiran, Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Sri K. Ramachandra, Sri Kiran Palakurthi, Sri E. Ramesh Chandra Goud, Sri R.
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....
Mandatory registration of FIR is required for cognizable offences, and failure to adhere to this process invalidates subsequent legal actions.
Procedural lapses in FIR registration render subsequent search and seizure invalid, emphasizing the importance of following legal protocol in criminal actions.
Mandatory registration of FIR is required for cognizable offences, and unlawful seizure of goods without proper procedure contravenes established legal principles.
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.