THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION No.27528 of 2025

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for

the records pertaining to proceedings No.A7/CS/403 2024 pending before respondent No.2, initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the proceeding of respondent No.8 on the ground that respondent No.8 has no authority to conduct the search and seizure and to direct respondent No.2 not to proceed with the impugned proceedings and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that on 10.12.2024, respondent No.8 intercepted the lorry bearing No.KA56 7808 transporting rice and after recording the statements of the driver and the person accompanying him in the vehicle, respondent No.8 came to the conclusion that PDS rice was being transported and therefore, the same were seized and handed over to the Civil Supplies Department. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated by issuing notices to the driver and the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner,

thereafter, filed W.P.No.35373 of 2024 before this Court claiming to be the owner of the seized rice and seeking release of stock of rice and vide common order dated 19.12.2024, this Court had directed the respondents to release stock of seized rice, subject to furnishing third party security equal to the value of stock of rice which has been seized by the authorities. It is submitted that pursuant to the said directions, the stock of rice has been released. The petitioner has now filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that respondent No.8 had no authority to search and seize the stock of rice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Sharanya Nayak v. State of Telangana in W.P.No.20667 of 2020, wherein it was held that the person authorized to effect seizure, shall be an officer who is not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. It is submitted that this decision has been followed in several other cases and therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the search and seizure in the present case is bad in law and that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are illegal and arbitrary.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, however, relied upon the panchanama dated 18.12.2024 to submit that the seizure was made by the District Civil Supplies Officer and is therefore valid. He further submitted that in the FIR, the owner of the rice is stated to be one Shaik Saleem and therefore, the petitioner is not the owner of the rice and cannot seek release of stock of rice.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that in the FIR, there is no mention of the name of the petitioner as the owner of the stock of rice. The FIR is registered on the complaint of the Assistant Sub-Inspector, who intercepted and seized the vehicle carrying the rice. Admittedly, as per the Clause 16 (1) of the Telangana State Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2016, an officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, only shall conduct inspection and seize any stocks of scheduled commodities. This Court, in the case of Sharanya Nayak v. State of Telangana (cited supra), has held that any search and seizure conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police is bad in law. Therefore, the said decision would apply to the present case as well. However, in view of the objection raised by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner is not the owner of the stock of rice, this Court observes that by virtue of the order of this Court in W.P.No.35373 of 2024, the respondents have already released the stock of rice in favour of the petitioner, apparently after verification of his credentials. Therefo