ORDER:-

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the orders vide Ref.No.I(2)/258/2023, dated 14.11.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent in directing the seized stock of 200.35 Qtls. Of Rice is ordered to be confiscation is illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to release the seized stock of 415 bags of Rice weighs about 20,320 Kgs in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders ...”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is doing rice business. The petitioner has been purchasing rice from the ryoths and the same has been selling to the hotels and in other respective places without any deviation and there is no any irregularity or infirmity in selling the rice at any point of time contrary to the Control Order, 2018. While so, Respondent No.4 along with his staff conducted vehicle check at Chilamkuri Papayya Shed, Gopavaram Village of Chennur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District on 04.08.2023 and found a Lorry bearing No.AP02-TB-3699 and Bolero bearing No.AP04-UA-1894 with 415 bags of PDS rice weighs about 20,320- Kgs. Then, Respondent No.4 had seized the stock alleging that the said rice is PDS rice and handed over to the Respondent No.5. Later, the petitioner have made a representation on 10.08.2023 before Respondent No.2 seeking to release of the stock for interim custody on furnishing personal security bond in favour of the Respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner have authorization for transportation of goods, in turn, there is clear evidence that the said stock is purchased from ryoths, absolutely, there is no any embargo from transporting the said goods. He further submits that the impugned orders of the Respondent No.2 vide Ref.No.I(2)/258/2023, dated 14.11.2023 is totally non-application of mind and it suffers from observation of principles of natural justice. Since in the impugned order, Respondent No.2 neither considered the legal aspects whether the stock can be confiscated under the Control order, 2018 or under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but seized without adhere to the procedure as contemplated under the law. If the Respondent No.2 afforded an opportunity, the petitioner is very much ready to place the evidence that the transportation of PDS rice is not in violation of any Control Order, 2018 but no such opportunity was provided by the Respondent No.2. He furthers submits that Respondent No.2 also not assigned any reason as why the confiscated stock will not be released for interim custody even though a request was made by the petitioner placing the relevant material. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

5. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the latest order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Onteru Bhaskar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department and others 1 in our considered opinion, it is appropriate and reasonable to direct the Respondent No.2 to release

1 2022 SCC OnLine AP 348

the seized stock in favour of the petitioner on imposing certain condition, to protect the interest of the Respondents, pending disposal of the 6A proceedings.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The impugned proceedings issued by Respondent No.2 vide Ref.No.I(2)/258/2023, dated 14.11.2023 is hereby set-aside.

(ii) The Respondents shall release the seized stock to the petitioner on condition of furnishing personal or third party immovable security property equivalent to the value of the seized stock within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy