In cases of seizure of perishable essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Act, courts may grant interim custody to owners upon providing adequate security, pending the final outcome of S. 6A confiscation proceedings to prevent economic loss and ensure the preservation of value.

W.P.No.10944 of 2026

Between:

Aitha Srikanth, S/o. Aitha Krishna

Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,

R/o. Flat No.102, Vasavi Rajamani Meadows,

Haripuri Colony, Road No.1, Saroornagar,

Ranga Reddy District – 500 102.

.. Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department,

secretariat, Hyderabad and three others

.. Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

Writ petition No.10944 of 2026 is filed with the following prayer:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in seizing and continuing to retain the Petitioner’s stock of rice admeasuring 187 quintals along with the lorry bearing No.AP-16-TY-1688, pursuant to the Panchanama dated 23.12.2025 in FIR No.275 of 2025 on the file of Palakurthy Police Station, Jangaon District, as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith release the said rice stock and the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and pass such other order or orders…”

Writ petition No.10995 of 2026 is filed with the following prayer:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in seizing and continuing to retain the Petitioner’s stock of rice admeasuring 187 quintals along with the lorry bearing No.AP-28-TA-7432, under Panchanama dated 23.12.2025 in connection with FIR No.274 of 2025 as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith release the seized rice stock and the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. K.Vishnu Kanth, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions.

3. The subject matter in both the writ petitions being similar in nature, they are being heard together.

Facts in WP No. 10944 of 2026:

4. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 187 quintals of commercial rice, seized by respondent No.4 under the cover of panchanama dated 23.12.2025, FIR No. 275 of 2025 is registered for offences under Sections 318(4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 & 8 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (FIR is Ex.P1, page No.12 of writ papers). Complaint (page No.16 of writ papers), is that a vehicle bearing registration No. AP 16 TY 1688 was intercepted by the police of Palakurthy, near valmidi cross roads carrying rice, intended for distribution to eligible beneficiaries through public distribution system, fraudulently and illegally procured from functionaries. 370 plastic bags (50 kgs each) of rice were being transported in the vehicle (Lorry) from Madhira mandal (Khammam District) to Nanded, Maharashtra. Complainant is the Deputy Tahsildar, he conducted panchanama in presence of witnesses, seized the vehicle and rice. Complainant requested the Deputy Marketing and Logistics officer to verify the nature of rice by collec