THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD v. Buildings, Hyderabad and others

seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.: 7 of 2O16 on the file of P.S.Vanasthalipuram, Cyberabad, i,r the offence punishable under Sections 42O and 406 of th: Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short'IPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short'EC Act').

2. Heard Ms.Sunitha, Iearned counsel for he petitioner and Mr.B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Governmi. Lt pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

3. During the course of hearing learned co rnsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order datt' I 13.07.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7S11 of 2016 an I batch.

4. Learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader it r Home has not disputed the same, 2

5. In view of the above said submission, the writ petition is - allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.78l I of 2016 and batch, dated 13.07.2016. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /o SECTION OFFICER T S.,Hyderabad

1. Th_e Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings 2. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram p.S. R.R. District. 3. The S^* tnspe_ctor of polij:.g,.VanasthdtipurJm p.S.'Rrng; RAdy District. 4. One CC (o N/S. C SUNTTHA KUtr/ARt,'AdvocatJiOpUdl 5. Trvo CCs to Gp FOR HOME ,High Court tor ifre dLfooiTelangana at 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] B[/ GJP To, 9k c.[-o^q 1.f,+r c_\r_\.\,€,x *pt tlf +. or"i"-r Jbr"r/ tj- a, -2DI6 ^/'?., Lep f.>o (+ar' /tore) \' ' -_/ / titcH COURT DATED:01 10912025 f * . i\r ).. 't<-t ) o, \ o.J u., ir*\-"\os ' :.: j rlfl 2f26 a a a.T(:1{ 19 ORDER Vr/P.No.2110 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT P ETITION WITI. OUT COSTS 1-lo e\( o\- ,o\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH CASE No. wP.No..r&1, ,l*rr, 16401,'16601, 7815,8012 & 9'l1 l of 2016 Between: Maimuna Begum ... Petitionel (W.P.No.781 1 o12016) AND The State of Telangana, rep.by its Chief Secretary, T.S.Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents (W.P.No.78l1 or2016) DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: ,I3h Ju|y, 2016 THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA HEDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE G.SHYAM PHASAD 'I 2 ., Whether reporters ot local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the ludgment? Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the judgment? C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J G.SHYAM PRASAD, J " THE HON'BLE MR JUSNCE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD + WP Nos.7811. 16387. 16401, 16601, 7815. m12 & 9111 of 2016 + DT.13.07.2016 # Maimuna Begum Vs. ...Petitiort r (W.P.No.781 1 of 2t I ) $ The State of Telangana, rep.by its Chiel Secretary, T.S.Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ... Responden ; (W.P.No.781 1 of 201 ) ^ Counsel ,or the Petitioner: Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy ! Counsel Ior the respondents: GP for Home OS) < Gist: > Head nole: ? Cases reterred: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition Nos.7811. 16:187. 16401. 161601. 7815.8012 & 911t ot 2016 Dated 13lh JuV. m16 Between Maimuna Begum .....Petilionr,r (W.P.No.781 1 of 201 l And The State of Telangana, rep.by its Chief Secretary, T.S.Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .,...Respondents (W.P.No.7811of2016) Counsel lor the petitioner: Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy Counsel ,or the Respondents: GP tor Home (TS) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SHI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SBIJUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition Nos.7811. 16387. 16401. '16601. 7815. 8012 & 911 I ol 2016 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) These writ petitions raise common legal issues, besides separate but identical detention orders being challenged therein. Each of the detenus is detained under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Prevenlion ol the Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (lor short 'the 1980 Act'). The gravamen of the allegation on which the detenus have been detained is that they have been engaged in clandestine business of purchasing commodities meant for public distribution system by hoarding, diverting and selling the same without any licence under the A.P.Stale Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (hereinatter referred to as 'the Control Order, 2008') r/w Secton 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 (for shorl the 1995 Act'). ln the glounds of detention, it is specifically alleged that the material placed belore respondent No.2 revealed that the detenus have been doing illegal and clandestine business of purchasing PDS rice and other commodities from the ration cardholders and thereafter storing and selling the same to the needy people for pecuniary gain. The grourr, s referred to and relied upon three criminal cases against each ol ll e detenus. Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for the petition(,r ;, submitted that the main ground of detention, namely, that the deter r s have been purchasing the rice meant lor public distribution syst-. n from ration cardholders, even if accepted on its face value does 'r,t constitute any offence either under the 1980 Act or the 1995 Act r under the Control Order, 2008. The learned counsel further submite i that the commodity of rice in respect of which allegation of iller; I purchase, storing and sale is made against the detenus is only r scheduled commodity under lhe Conlrol Order, 2008 and that as 11" ) activity of the detenus referred to above does not contravene any of t'r ) provisions of the Control Order, 2008, the detenus are not liable for a. , penal consequences and consequently the very ground on which t1 r detenus have been detained is unsustainable in law and the detentir orders are therefore liable lo be quashed. The learned Government Pleader tor Home (TS) submitted tl z : since rice is a foodstuff within the meaning of 'foodstuffs' included i entry (3) of the Schedule to the 1995 Act, any contravention therec constitutes an offence. He has further submitted that as the activily c the detenus, namely, bulk purchase of rice meant for public distributior system from the cardholders and selling the same lor higher prices, i: de-reiling the whole public distribution system and thereby it I affecting the public order. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learn€( counsel for the respective parties. The detention orders were passed under Section 3 of the 19t( Act. Under the said provision, il a person is found acting in ar) manner prejudicial to the maintenance ol supplies of commoditi€ s essential to the community, he can be detained under an order to be made by the authorities relerred to in the said provision. Under explanation to Section 3(1), the words "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" are explained as under: "(a) committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('10 of 1955), or under any other law for the time being in lorce relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in any commodity essential to the community; or (b) dealing in any commodity - which is an essential commodity as defined in the (i) Essenlial Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);or with respect to which provisions have been made (iD in any such other law as is referred to in clause (a), with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly deteat oI tend to defeat the provisions of that Act or other law aforesaid." We shall proceed for the purpose of these cases that the rice being a foodstutf is an essential commodity. The question then is whether mere purchase of rice meant for public distribution system from the cardholders unauthorisedly lor making unjust enrichment amounls lo conlravention of any of the provisions of the 1 995 Act or the Control Order, 2008. Section 7 of the 1995 Act deals with penalties. This provision envisages that if any person contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the 1995 AcL he shall be punished as prescribed under the said provision. Therefore, lor a person to anract penal consequences, he is found to have conlravened any of the orders made under Section 3 of the 1 995 Act. The Conuol Order, 2008 is an Order which was made by the State in exercise of the power conlerred on it by Secton 3 rl^, Section 5 of he 1995 Act. ll the detenus carry on any of their activities in contravention of any of the Clauses of the Control Order, 2008 such activities attract penal consequences as prescribed under Section 7 of the 1995 Act. Clause 17 of the Contsol Order, 2008 envisages penalties for possessing cards, making false entries or diverting stock. The learned Govemment Pleader conceded that the said Clause applies to fair price shop dealers, nominated retailers and hawkers and therefore tl e same has no application to the detenus who do not tall in any of thor e categones. The only other Clause on which the learned Governms tt Pleader placed reliance is Clause 17(A) ot the Control Order, 2( ( 3 which reads as under: "17.(A) lnlerruption in the process ol Distrlbutioni "No Fair Price Shop dealer or card holder or any person shall be allowed to cause interruption or interlere with the process of smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under Public Distribution system or other Government schemes at any level right from Food Corporation ol lndia godown point to Fair Price Shop point, till the scheduled commodity reaches the intended beneliciary. Any such attempt ol interruption or interfering with such process shall be treated as an abetment and be deemed to have contravened lhis order, thereby committing an offence under Seclion 8 of the Essential Commodities Act. '1955." A carelul reading of the above re-produced Clause shows tf i I the same is anracted if a fair price shop dealer or cardholder or a I person causes interruption or interferes with the smooth distribution (' scheduled commodities under the public distribution system or oth€ Government schemes at any level right from the Food Corporation c lndia godown to the fair price shop point, till the scheduled commod t reaches the intended beneficiary. From the unequivocal pla I language of this provision, it is clear that it gets attracted when there ir interruption of food grains from the stage ol FCI godown till it reachc: the end beneticiary i.e., cardholders. The provision does nt comprehend any activity relating to any commodity falling under tl r Control Order, 2008 once it reaches the cardholder. There is rc whisper either in the detention order or in the grounds ol detention thil any of the detenus is interrupting the smooth functioning of the scheduled commodities ,rom the FCI godown point till it reaches intended beneficiary. On the contrary, the whole allegation against the detenus is that they have been purchasing the PDS rice trom the cardholders. Therefore, this activity ol the detenus completely falls outside clause 17(A) ol lhe control order, 2008. once there is no prohibition on such activity either under the 1995 Act or under the Control Order, 2008 which undisputedly is lhe only Order that governs distribution and control of rice meanl for public distribution system, the detenus cannot be accused ol committing any offence. As the respondents failed to show that the detenus have conlravened the provisions of any other Control Order lramed under Section 3 ol the 1995 Act, the alleged activities of the delenus are not liable for any penal action. Once their activities do not constitute an offence under law, their preventive detention under the provisions of the 1980 Act cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned orders of detention are set aside and consequently the detenus shall be lorthwith released from jail' The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of as infructuous' C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J G.SHYAM PRASAD, J 1 3th July, 2016 VGB