The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to refund an amount of Rs.92,800/- (Rupees ninety two thousand eight hundred only) which was paid by the petitioner on 16/1 112020 vide Treasury Challan No.0200764352 in relation to the impugned order in Ref.No.CS6/8912019, dated 1211112020 passed by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ petition I I I I l \ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SOMAVARAPU SAWANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES WRIT PETITION NO: 10501 OF 2024 Between: M/s.Harikesh Enterprises, #2-62, Urubari gadda, Maheshwaram, Maheshwaram, Rangareddy District, Rep. by its Proprietor Salevendra Shiva Kumar, S/o.Salevendra Shamappa, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Business, Fi,to. D.No.1-19, [Vlaheshwaram Mandal, Ghatpalli, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER AND

5. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department,r Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad The Collector (Civil Supplies), New Collectorate, Kongara Kalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana 501510. The District Civil Supply Officer, New Collectorate, Kongara Kalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana 501510. The Assistant Civil Supply Officer, 0/0 District Civil Supply Office, Ranga Reddy District, New Collectorate, Kongara Kalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Deputy Tahasildar (CS), Maheshwaram Mandal, 0/o DCSO Office, New Collectorate, Kongara Kalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the S I of Police of Maheshwaram Police Station in seizing the Bharath Benz lorry bearing No. AP 39 TX 6399 together 30 tons of Rice on 13.04.2024, in case in Crime No.'142 ot 2O24, dated 13.04.2024 on the ground that the petitioners transporting PDS Rice from Urubari Gadda to Vijayawada without any valid documents, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release 30 tons of rice of the petitioner seized in Crime No.142 of 2024, dated 13.04.2024 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release 30 tons of rice seized in Crime No. 142 ot 2024, daled 13.O4.2024, pending disposal of the above petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order in lA.No.,l of 2024 in Wp.No.105O1 of 2024, dl: O2.O5.2024 and dismiss the Wp Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Gp FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION Nos.331 of2021 and 10501 of2024 C OMMON OITDER: W.P.No.331 of 2021 is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Ref.No.CS6 18912019, dated 12.1 1.2020 passed by respondent No.2 whereby and whereunder confiscation o1' l007ir of seized stock of PDS rice worlh of Rs.92,800/- in lavc,ur of the Govemment as illegal, arbitrary and withorit jurisdiction and consequentl,v to call for the records in relation to thc impugned order dated l2.l I .202t1 and to pass sucl-i other order or ot'ders

2. Brief faot,; leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition arc ihat the petitioner is tl.re Proprietor of M/s.Sri Srinivasa Ricc h,Ii11, situated at Bollampally Vitlage, Veldanda Mandal, Nagarkurnool Dislr'ict. The petitioner claims; to be doing business by taking a rice mi[[ on lease basis and purchasing the paddy from the farmers in and around Veldanda Vitlage and Mandal and after milling the paddy into rice, selling the rice as well as agricu.ltural produce. It is stated that there is no requirement of 2 TMD.J W.P.Nos. 13l of202l ard 10501 of2024 any license either to purchase, sell, store or transport the rice within the State or outside the State. lt is submitted that the Central Govemment vide SO No.2559(E) dated 30.09.2014 was not inclined ro extend the restrictions on rice and paddy and on the basis of the same, the Govemment of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 21.11.2014. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is no restriction on dealing with rice or paddy within the State of Telangana

3. It is submitted that the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies)(Enft), Veldanda Mandal, inspected the business premises ol the petitioner and alleged that the petitioner IS indulging in clandestine business by purchasing PDS rice and is diverting it into the black market for illegal benefits. They found around 168 bags of uneven weight, altogether 58 quintals of rice, 51.50 quintals of paddy (B.P.T), 12.60 quintals of broken rice (PDS), 20.75 quintals of PVR (BPT) and the value of the total serzure ls Rs.2,33,4501- and the same was handed over to the neighboring rice mill owner. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section

64. of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 68 of the Act, and during the \ ' +-; .1t" -{ IMD,J W.P.Nos 331 of 202l tnd I0501of2024 3 proceedings under Section 6,4 of the Act, the complainant has stated that the petitioner rvas purchasing the PDS rice from the cardholders and thereafter converting it into broken rice and selling them to the poultry farms at highel rates. The petitioner, however, denied the same and submitted that he was unaware of purchase of PDS ricc from the cardholders by his employee (Gumastha) and requested to excuse him for his first mistake. The District Collector, however, was not convinced with the explanation ofthe petitioner and observing that thc rice available in the mill is PDS rice. has ordered for confiscation of 100% ofthe seized stock of PDS rice worth Rs.92,800/-. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.33l 6f 202L

4. Learnecl counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised various grounds stating that as per the notihcation issued by the Go"'emment of India and G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 21.11 .2014 issued by the Govemment of Telangana, ricc is not an essential commodity and therefore the provisions of the Telangana State Public Distribution Control Order, 2016 (for short, 'the Control Order, 2016'), are not applicable to the facts of the present i:ase. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that 4 TMD.J W.P.Nos.33l of 2021 and 10501of2024 none of the cardholders from whom the petitioner has allegedly purchased the PDS rice have been examined and therefore, there was no basis to come to the conclusion that it was PDS rice. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no mention of the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, and therefore, the invocation ofthe provisions of Section 6,4. of the Act is not proper and justifiable. Leamed counsel has taken this Court through various documents to support his contentions and also referred to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the rice is not an essentiai commodity and therefore the provisions of the Control Order,2016 cannot be invoked in such cases.

5. Leamed Govemment Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the averment made in the counter affidavit and submitted that though rice is not an essential commodity, it is a scheduled commodity and as the rice involved is for the public distribution system, the provisions of the Act can be invoked Leamed Govemment Pleader submitted that these issues have already fallen for consideration before various benches of this Court, the latest €': TMD,J W.l'.).los 331 of 2021 arrd 10501 of2024 5 decision being :n the case of W.P.Nos.20l43 of 2019 and batch dated

22.08.2024, whr:rein, considering the similar issues, this Court has held that the petitioner can raise all the grounds in the proceedings under Section 6,4 of the Act. The Court has observed that whether the rice is PDS rice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be determined in a writ petition. '[he Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.767 of 2024 has observed that against the order under Sectioh 6,4 of the Act, the petitioner can file an appeal and not writ petition.

6. In vierv ol the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that it is covered b1, the decision of the Coordinate Bench ol this Court in W.P.No.4673 o1- ).023 dated 18.11.2023 and all the points have already been considcrec and held against the petitioner. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court has held that illegal possession, transportation and storage of PDS lice would fall within the provisions of the Control Order, 2016 and therefbre, initiation of action under Section 6,4. of the Act in respect of the PDS rice is justified. In this case, the petitioner himself has admitted that it is PDS rice which has been purchased from the cardholders and subsequently converted to broken rice to be sold at a TMD,J W.l'.Nos. 331 of 2021 and 10501 of2024 6 higher rate. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage. Accordingly, W.P.No.331 of 2021 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the proceedings under Section 64 of the Act. 7 . W.P.No. 10501 of 2024 is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the SI of Police of Maheshwaram Police Station, .in scizing the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TX 6399, together with 30 tons of rice on 13.04.2024 on the ground that the petitioner was transporting PDS rice from Urubari Gabba, Maheshwaram to Vij ayawada as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle and stock.

8. This Court finds that vide interim order dated 02-05.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.10501 of 2024, the vehicle as well as the stock were directed to be released on fulfillment of certain conditions. g. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the very same ground that the rice is not an essential commodity and therefore, the seizure of :'a', 7 TN,ID,J W lr.Nos.331 of202l and I0501oi2024 rice by the respondents under the Essentiar commodities Act is not maintainable

10. For the reasons mentioned above and particularly since in this case the proceedings under Section 64 of the Act are still pending and whether the ricr: seized is pDS rice or not is yet to be verified and decided by the authorities, this court is not inclined to interl'ere at this stage. Accordingly, W.p.No.l050l of 2024 is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take all these grounds in the proceedings under Section

6.4 of the Ac1 befbre the Collector, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.F,.No.767 of 2024 dated.28.06.2024.

11. In vieu, oi' the same, both the Writ petitions are dismissed with liber-ty as granted above. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGI,9-TRAR ) sElrfroN oFFrcER \ To, 1 2 3 One CC to SRl. SOIMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU! Two CD Copies

4. KKS BS HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 a' rtE i:i TA r(- o 2 2 lrt{ 20[ q J l) |,, ,) , 'l t r. COMMON ORDER WP.No.331 of 2021and 10501 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS