The exercise of writ jurisdiction is inappropriate when statutory proceedings are pending, particularly in cases involving conflicting evidence and public interest.

JUDGMENT :

This Writ Appeal assails the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32351 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to release the seized stock of rice (54.15 quintals), vehicle (TS 19 T 8902) and cell phones, on the ground that the seized rice was not found to be Public Distribution System (PDS) rice.

2. Heard Sri N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the appellants, Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Majesh Raju, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

Factual Matrix in brief:

3. On 09.09.2025, acting upon credible information, the Enforcement Officials of the Civil Supplies Department conducted an inspection of the premises of M/s Sri Vasavi Modern Rice Mill, situated at Dahegaon, belonging to respondent No.1. During the course of the inspection, a vehicle bearing registration No. TS 19 T 8902 was found unloading rice packed in plastic bags. On verification, a quantity of 54.15 quintals of rice, suspected to be PDS rice meant for illegal diversion and recycling, was seized along with the said vehicle and certain mobile phones.

4. Consequent thereto, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short '1955 Act’) were initiated before the Collector (Civil Supplies), Kumuram Bheem Asifabad, for confiscation of the seized rice, vehicle, and other material. Simultaneously, FIR No. 111 of 2025 came to be registered against the respondents alleging tampering with seized evidence.

5. A sample of the seized rice was forwarded for analysis and was examined on 11.09.2025 by the Technical Assistant of the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (TGSCSCL), which reported the presence of Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK) to the extent of 0.9%, stated to be within the range applicable to PDS rice. 6. Subsequently, on a representation submitted by respondent No.1, a second test was conducted on 14.10.2025, wherein the report indicated 0.00% FRK, suggesting that the rice was not of PDS origin. The appellants contend that the said second analysis suffered from procedural irregularities and was influenced by extraneous considerations.

7. The learned Single Judge, placing primary reliance on the second test report dated 14.10.2025, allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and directed release of the seized rice, vehicle, and other material, which order is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.

Contentions of the appellant:

8. The learned Government Pleader for the appellant has contended hereunder:

i. That the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the same was passed at the threshold without affording sufficient opportunity to the appellants to file a counter-affidavit and without proper consideration of the material placed on record, including the sworn/confessional statements of respondent Nos.2 and 3 recorded on 17.09.2025, wherein they categorically admitted the illegal purchase, transportation and attempted recycling of PDS rice.

ii. That the learned Single Judge committed a patent error of fact in observing that even the first technical report dated 11.09.2025 disclosed “no FRK grains”. That on the contrary, the said report specifically recorded the presence of FRK to the extent of 0.9%, which is a determinative indicator of PDS rice.

iii. That the subsequent report dated 14.10.2025 is self-contradictory and unreliable, particularly in view of the unauthorized pr