Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 842
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J
MUTHUKURI SRINIVASULU – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 29790/2024
1. VANGA ANITA; 1. GP FOR HOME; 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against orders of the Sessions Court under the Essential Commodities Act, allowing modification of conditions for vehicle release to prevent undue hardship.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Writ petition filed challenging the order of confiscation of seized vehicle and PDS rice - Court held that the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for release of the vehicle was altered to allow immovable property as security - The petitioner was unable to furnish the bank guarantee for two years, leading to potential loss if the appeal succeeded. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court affirmed that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against orders passed by the Sessions Court under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, despite the existence of alternative remedies. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a vehicle seized for carrying PDS rice, sought release of the vehicle and rice, challenging the condition of providing a bank guarantee for its release. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the writ petition, modifying the condition to permit immovable property as security instead of a bank guarantee. (Para 8)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the condition imposed for the release of the vehicle and the maintainability of the writ petition against the Sessions Court's order. (Paras 4, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the inability to furnish a bank guarantee for an extended period justified altering the condition to allow immovable property as security, emphasizing the importance of not causing undue hardship to the petitioner. (Paras 7, 8)
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condition imposed to furnish (Para 6) |
| 2. inability of the petitioner (Para 7) |
| 3. condition to furnish bank (Para 8) |
ORDER:
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:
“…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 ordering to confiscate the seized stock of PDS rice to the extent of 300 bags (150 Qtts) and vehicle (lorry) bearing No.KA 39 A 0601 to release the same vehicle instead of not accepting the 3rd party security/guarantee/personal bond is illegal, arbitrary improper unjust and against to the principals of natural justice a and consequently to direct the respondents to release the vehicle bearing No.KA 39 A 0601 and PDS rice to the extent of 300 bags(150 Qtts) by accepting 3rd party security/guarantee/ personal bond and pass such other relief or reliefs …….…”
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:
The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA 39 A 0601. It was seized on the allegation that PDS rice was being carried in that vehicle. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kurnool in which Crl.M.P.No.164 of 2024 was filed under Section 6-C (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to direct the Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal to release the seized vehicle in interim custody pending the disposal of the appeal which was filed against the orders of the Collector (CS), Nandyal in Rc.CS1/13/2023 dated 19.04.2023.
3. After hearing both parties, the Sessions Judge, Kurnool allowed the petition and ordered release of the vehicle towards interim custody on the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the satisfaction of that Court with an undertaking that the petitioner would not alter or alienate the vehicle till finalization of the appeal and further undertake that he would not by himself or through others, use the vehicle for any illegal purpose and in the event of repetition of such conduct on his part, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the fact and forfeit the bank guarantee. It was further ordered that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by that Court and also that the petitioner shall see that the registration certificate, route permits and other statutory prescriptions are complied with, before he utilizes the vehicle. With these conditions the petitioner was ordered to execute the bond. Aggrieved by the conditions, this writ petition was filed.
4. Initially the learned Assistant Government Pleader objected the maintainability of the writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Sessions Court.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner placed a reliance on the decision of this High Court in V.Venugopal and another Vs. the Joint Collector, Chittoor District at Chittoor, [2010 SCC Online AP 356] wherein it was held as follows:-
“The weighty judicial authority leads to irresistible conclusion that even where the special statute read with provisions in CrPC provide for remedy of a revision against inferior criminal Court acting either as judicial authority or persona designata, a petition for writ of Certiorari is not absolutely barred. If a legislative enactment provides for an appellate remedy and attaches finality, certainly the writ jurisdiction is not barred even if there is a ‘no certiorari clause’, but special enactment does not attach finality to the appellate order, a revision to the High Court either under the special enactment or under Article 227 of Constitution of India is maintainable. This itself does not exclude the prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. As it was originally enacted Essential Commodities Act provided for an appeal to judicial authority designated by t
