K. Ravi Reddy v. The Joint Collector, Nellore District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Jun 2008
- Bench
- GODA RAGHURAM
Outcome
Disposed of
In the circumstances above, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
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 to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in initiating 6-A proceedings as illegal and wtihout jurisdiction and to set aside the order No.Rc.B/361/08 dated 07.06.2008 passed by the Joint Collector, Nellore, the 1st respondent herein, and direct the respondents to release the seized lorry bearing No. AP26 Y 1359 in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the authority and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following at the stage of admission :
ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The grievance of the petitioner is limited (at the hearing) to the condition imposed by the 1st respondent in the impugned order dated
Operative part
7.6.2008, directing furnishing of a bank guarantee for Rs.2,03,513/- for release of the seized rice of 16281 bags and the petitioner’s lorry bearing registration No. AP 26 W 1359. Rice belonging to Raghunandha Traders P & R General Merchants and Commission Agent No.80 was being transported in the petitioner’s lorry. While so, the lorry was intercepted and seized along with the rice, on allegations of contravention of Clause 7 (a) (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, alleging that no release certificate was obtained by the rice miller for transporting the levy free rice. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 have been initiated. The rice miller and the petitioner as the owner of the lorry separately applied for release of the seized rice and the lorry respectively. The first respondent passed the impugned order together dealing with the seized rice and the lorry and directed release of the rice in the lorry on condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs.2,03,513/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is concerned only with the lorry and seeks its release. He is not in a position to furnish the bank guarantee as the petitioner would have to deposit the stipulated amount for obtaining a guarantee from the bank. In the circumstances above, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, directing the 1st respondent to determine the value of the lorry separately and pass a fresh order for release of the lorry on condition of the petitioner furnishing immovable property security for the value so determined by the 1st respondent and to the satisfaction of the said respondent. The first respondent shall pass a revised order within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 23.6.2008 Note: CC in three days. Bo
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the circumstances above, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Jun 2008. The bench was GODA RAGHURAM.
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.