Order:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the fourth respondent in seizing the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 21 W 5040 on

15.10.2020 in Crime No.440 of 2020 as illegal and arbitrary.

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the subject vehicle and that, on 15.10.2020, the fourth respondent intercepted the vehicle and seized the same along with rice on the ground that PDS rice was being transported in the vehicle and a case in Crime No.440 of 2020 was registered under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; the petitioner’s driver transported the rice in the vehicle without his knowledge and seizure of the subject vehicle is illegal. Hence the Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.10365 of 2020, dated 22.06.2020, granted liberty to the petitioner therein to file a petition before the concerned Magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle and he requests that the same order would be passed in the present case also.

This Court allowed W.P.No.10365 of 2020, observing as follows.

“On hearing learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and on perusal of legal position, the present case falls under peculiar circumstances. As per Section 6-E of the EC Act, when an essential commodity and conveyance used for carrying essential commodity were seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of EC Act, then, pending the confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A, it is the Collector or the State Government concerned under Section 6-C shall alone but not the Court or Tribunal or other authority, have the power to pass orders regarding possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. Section 6-E reads thus:

Sec.6-E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases:- Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6-A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, 1[the State Government concerned under Section 6- C] shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, 2[any Court, Tribunal or other authority] shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.]

Therefore, Section 6-E engrafts a bar on Court, Tribunal or other authority to pass any order in relation to the essential commodity or the vehicle which were seized pending confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A and in such instances, the Collector or the State Government concerned under Section 6-C alone shall have the power to pass suitable orders in respect of the seized essential commodity and concerned vehicle. In similar circumstances, in B. Pundarikam and others vs. The District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy and others (2012(4) ALT 370 = MANU/AP/0279/2012), a learned Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh applying the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of EC Act, directed the respondent/District Collector to determine the market value of the vehicle involved in illegal transportation of essential commodities and further directed the writ petitioner who was the owner of the said vehicle to offer bank guarantee or an immovable property security or any third party security proportionate to the value of the vehicle for granting interim custody pending confiscation proceedings. From the above jurisprudence, there can be no demur that pending confiscation proceedings, it is the District