Business, Rl/o.Baronibanda Village of Shali Gowraram (M) Nalgonda dist v. The Station House Officer, P.S. Madgulapally, Nalgonda District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With liberty as prayed for, this writ Petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Artible 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 Wiit ot Mandamus, declaring the action of the Deputy Tahasildar seized under cover of panchanama dated 18,03.2022 on the ground that the Petitioner unlawfully transporting Public Distribution Rice and gaining huge profits the 6th respondent registered a case in Crime No. 20 Ot 2022, dated 18-03-2022 declaring that rice and paddy are not essential commodities as per the schedule correlating to Section 24 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and consequenfly there cannot be any applicability of the provisions of the Act to theF storage, movement and transportation of rice with the petitioner owner of the Rlce and consequently the Telangana State Public Distribution System Control Order' 2016 is also inapplicable to the rice belonging to the petitioner and therefore the seizure of the DCM vehicle together with rice effeLted by the Deputy Tahasildar in seizing DCM Vehicle bearing Regn. No. TS 29 T 1122together with 110 quintals (220 plastic bags (Each Bag 50 Kgs) of rice under cover of panchanama dated 18.03.2022 registered a case in Crime No. 20 Ot 2022, dated 18-03-2022 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the seized 110 quintals (220 plastic bags (Each Bag 50 Kgs) of rice of the petitioner on under the cover of panchanama dated 18.03.2022 seized in Crime No. 20 Ot 2022, dated 18-03-2022 to the petitioner, since the said rice and vehicle are not meant for Public Distribution through fair price shops. :1OF20 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 forthwith release seized 1 10 quintals (220 plastic bags (Each Bag 50 Kgs) of rice of the petitioner under cover of panchanama dated 18.03.2022 seized in Crime No. 20 Of 2022, dated 18-03-2022 to the petitioner' since the said rice is not meant for Public Distribution through fair price shops. Counset for the Petitioner : SRI SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to5 : GP FOR CML SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.24467 of 2025
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to challenge the proceedings under Section 6-4 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the appropriate authority"
2. Permission is accorded.
Operative part
3. With liberty as prayed for, this writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/-G. JYOTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,
One CC to SRI SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advocate' [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State of Telangana.tOUTl
Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
Two CD CoPies. N. BSK BS \ I y ) HIGH COURT DATED:061101202s ORDER WP.No.24467 ot 2025 -a<: , ,.{ f c i 0 6 lvst/ M .s PArcHE0 , DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITH DRAWN WITHOUT COSTS I \6 1A 10
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With liberty as prayed for, this writ Petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 24; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.