✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court

Veera Nagaraju Gupta v. East Godavari District at Kakinada

Writ Petition No. 17891 of 2007G ROHINI

Case at a glance

Bench
G ROHINI

Provisions considered

Judgment

M/s. Sri Sai Lakshmi Trades, Patavala Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Director K. Kasi Surya Veera Nagaraju Gupta .. Petitioner And

1.

The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), East Godavari District at Kakinada. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17891 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the respondent dated 20-8-2007 rejecting the request of the petitioner for release of the stocks pending enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘EC Act, 1955’) as arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. The material on record shows that under the Panchanama dated 8-8-2007, 285.50 quintals of rice, 182.75 quintals of paddy and

5.00 quintals of broken rice was seized on certain allegations specified thereunder. Having rejected the request of the petitioner for release of the seized stock, it appears that subsequently the respondent has already ordered for disposal of 285.50 quintals of PDS rice. Thus, the only stock remained as on today is 182.75 quintals of paddy and 5.00 quintals of broken rice. Having regard the nature of the allegations Panchanama, I am of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to either party if the said stock is released on furnishing Bank Guarantee for its value. Accordingly, while leaving it open to the respondent to proceed with the enquiry under Section 6-A of the EC Act, 1955 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to release 182.75 quintals of paddy and

5.00 quintals of broken rice subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes Bank Guarantee for the total value of the said stock. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ (G. ROHINI, J.) 23rd August, 2007.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 17891 of 2007). ← Search more judgments