Amadalavalasa town v. The Joint Collector, Srikakulam Srikakulam District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Nov 2004
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Disposed of
facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Admittedly, enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, is pending and it is for the respondent to enquire into the allegations and to record a finding as to the correctness of the same. It is always open to the petitioner to submit…
Judgment
Cause title
Sri Lakshminaryana Manure Depot rep by Proprietor Podugu Janardhanarao S/o Late Venkataramana, agd 65 years, Fertilizers business, R/o Door No. 7-2-120 Dabala Street, Amadalavalasa town and Mandal, Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER
AND The Joint Collector, Srikakulam Srikakulam District .....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings S.R. No. 21/2004 S.I. dated 19-10-2004 as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to release the stocks mentioned in the seizer report dated 22-6-2004 and show Cause Notice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court at the admission stage made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be a licensed dealer dealing in fertilizers. He states that on 22.06.2004 the Fertilizers Inspector, Srikakulam inspected his shop and seized the stocks available on the ground that he has been selling the fertilizers in violation of Clause 28(1)(d) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. In pursuance of the seizure report the Fertilizers Inspector, Srikakulam, respondent/Joint Collector, Srikakulam issued a show cause notice dated 19-10-2004 calling upon the petitioner as to why the seized stock should not be confiscated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act,
The petitioner contends that the irregularities as alleged in the show-cause notice are all false and baseless and the impugned seizure as well as the confiscation proceedings are arbitrary and illegal. Hence, this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent – Joint Collector to release the seized stock.
Operative part
Admittedly, enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, is pending and it is for the respondent to enquire into the allegations and to record a finding as to the correctness of the same. It is always open to the petitioner to submit his explanation denying the allegations made and also to place the relevant material before the respondent to substantiate his version. Hence, I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits. However, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to complete the enquiry initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the stocks seized shall not be sold.
The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To:
The Joint Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District
2. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
3. Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Essential Commodities Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 17 Nov 2004. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.