The court affirmed that rice purchased in open auction cannot be sold without proper authorization, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions.

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2010 against the order dated 05.07.2010 in M.C. No.123 of 2010 passed by 2 nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to release bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for the value of the seized stock and to pass such other order or orders.

2. The pleadings in the writ petition are that the petitioner was the proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Rama Rice and General Merchant, Church Road, Khammam District and has valid Form-B license for running the said business. It is submitted that on 09.10.2010, the respondent, along with Enforcement team intercepted the petitioner’s lorry bearing No.AP 20 TA 1699 and on verification of the stock in the said lorry, found that 200 quintals of PDS rice was being transported from Khammam illegally under the guise of “Cheeru” i.e., the mixture of lease quality broken rice and bran. It is further alleged that the rice is being transported without taking permission from the 2 nd respondent and thereby violated Clause 7(a) (1) and (2), and Clause 16 of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy Order), 1984. The respondent authorities therefore inspected the rice mill of the petitioner and conducted a panchanama on 20.10.2010 alleging that there is a variation in book balance when compared to ground balance with regard to shortage of 4.03 quintals of broken rice, 0.91 Kgs of paddy and also seized common variety of rice 3427 bags (each bag consists of 50 Kg). Therefore, the petitioner’s explanation was called for and proceedings 6(a) under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were initiated against the petitioner. In response, the petitioner had explained that he has purchased the broken rice in the open auction conducted by the Civil Supplies Authorities. However, the respondents observed that the price paid for the said 212.80 quintals of the rice is below the procurement price of Rs.1667/- per quintal, which indicates that the rice purchased in the open auction is not the quality rice to accept the same towards procurement price which is exclusively used for non-domestic purposes like poultry feed etc. and was unfit for human consumption. It was observed that the petitioner has not availed any permits for sale of levy free rice, out of his entitlement of 4,550 quintals of rice which arrived upon delivery of 18,200.00 quintals of levy rice in the crop year 2009-2010 and that the petitioner has no permission to transport the said seized rice of 212.80 quintals. The respondents therefore framed the following charges against the petitioner:

(i) The petitioner tried to transport 212.80 quintals of common variety rice in the guise of Cheeru to Palakollu without any permit or authorization from the Collector (CS), Khammam, and manipulated 2 nd copy of the Tax Invoice Bill bearing No.22, dated 19.10.2010.

(ii) The petitioner possessed total 190.51 quintals common variety unauthorized excess rice stock, than the stocks of rice mentioned in both B and C Registers of his firm.

(iii) The petitioner failed to maintain true and correct accounts of his business firm.

Therefore, the charges were held for the above reasons and in spite of the manipulation of the 2 nd copy of the Tax Invoice Bill, it was observed that the particulars filled in original bill which was produced at the time of seizure of lorry at Palakollu, and the second copy of the Tax Invoice Bill are totally different. It was observed that as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, the petitioner shall not sell the rice which was acquired by way of open auction, into open market, without a valid permission from the competent authority and thus, there is violation of the Clause 7(b) (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Therefore, charges were held as proved against the p