THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN Writ Appeal Nos.344 and 355 of 2024

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

2. 440 quintals in 880 bags of rice were seized under cover of Panchanama dated 17.04.2022, which was the subject matter of confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the 1955 Act’). That is the subject matter of W.P.No.24869 of 2023 from which W.A.No.355 of 2024 arises.

3. Similarly, 450 quintals in 900 bags of rice together with Lorry and Trolleys were seized under cover of Panchanama dated 16.04.2022, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.24948 of 2023 from which W.A.No.344 of

2024 arises. Similar confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the 1955 Act were initiated by the Collector (Civil Supplies), Rajanna-Siricilla District.

4. Since the commodity was perishable in nature, the same was sold in public auction under Section 6-A(2)(ii) of the 1955 Act and the sale proceeds of Rs.7,04,000/- were deposited in the Government account by Challan dated 06.09.2022. However, Section 6-A proceedings were pending, when the writ petitions were filed after a delay of about one year of the seizure.

5. Similarly, in the connected writ petition i.e. W.P.No.24948 of 2023, the seized rice was sold and the sale proceeds of Rs.7,20,000/- were deposited on 06.09.2022 with the Government account. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the 1955 Act were pending in the said case also.

6. The writ petitions question the seizure of these commodities as illegal, improper and without any authority of law.

7. Learned writ court disposed of the writ petitions filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the writ petitioners’) directing the respondent-Collector (Civil Supplies), Rajanna-Siricilla District, to conclude Section 6- A proceedings within four weeks and the writ petitioners were given liberty to raise all grounds including that rice is not an essential commodity under the 1955 Act and Control Orders made thereunder. Respondent No.2 was also directed to frame an issue on this point and take a decision taking into account the judgment rendered in the case of Maimuna Begum v. State of Telangana represented by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad, 2016 (5) ALT 280 (DB). Writ petitioners being aggrieved have preferred these two appeals.

8. The main ground of challenge on behalf of the writ petitioners is that in view of the amendment introducing Section 2-A with effect from 12.02.2007 read with the Schedule to the 1955 Act, rice and paddy not being

specified as an ‘essential commodity’, the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction.

9. Learned writ court therefore erred in directing conclusion of Section 6-A proceedings instead of quashing the seizure itself.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has brought to our notice the judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Elluru Chandra Obul Reddy v. Joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District, 2008 (6) ALD 411 (DB), wherein the very question whether rice and paddy fell within the varieties prescribed in Schedules I and II of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 under the 1955 Act, was answered classifying them as ‘essential commodities’. He has also referred to a decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court Gugulothu Pandu v. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary (W.A.No.451 of 2022 dated

21.07.2022).

11. It is submitted that this Court has relied upon the judgment rendered in Elluru Chandra Obul Reddy (supra) and conclusively answered the question whether rice and paddy fall within the definition of ‘essential commodities’. It is submitted that the said decision was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Apex Co