High Court · 2025

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent issuing notice in case No. c-A case No.A7ls4 rcst2o24 as iilegar, arbitrary and vioration of principres of natural justice and consequentry direct the respondents to stay aI further proceedings in case No. c-A case No.A7ls 4tcsl2o24 till disposal of the above writ petition and pass. IANO:1O F 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the oircumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings in Case No. C_A Case No.A7l54 tC:S12g24till disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 oF 2024 Between: 1 a J The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secrel consumer Affairs, rooo-riJc]"ir';;;;YE;U,"tariar Buitdinss ryoeraoaXry' The Collector (CS). Ranga Reddy District, lntegrated Collectorate, At Kongarkalan. Hyderabad. The Deputy Tahasildar {CS), Circle l[, Saroornagar, O/o Asst. Civil Supply office, Rajendranagar, Ring'i nJoov oLt-riii. vr,qvq,' AND ...PETITIONERS 1 M/s.Balaji Trade.s, Sv.No.3.19, Na.traj Nagar, Rajendranagar Hyderabad, Reo. by its proprietor Jamidao vai;inailr,3lo5[rrjpljr,'X.glo about 39 years. ocb Business, R/o D No za <riimprr, 6hit6;:: G,nlir,arri, Bidar District, Presently Residirg K,shan Bagh,'HyOeraOi"O-'"-' -"' Sangram. Son of Madeona,. Age.45 Lorry No.KA s6 7BOt. Rllo yatudp-ura dtiJul' e"r!rr;;tyar.r, Bidar -years, Occ. Owner ol Ashok Levland ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section '1 51 cpc praying that in the crnlumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coun may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in W.p.No 31924 of 2024 rlt: 27-11-2024 and dismiss the Writ petition. Counsel for the peritioners: SRt SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES WRIT PETITION N O: 8598 O F 2024 Between: ,l Hlt, tX'/ir'i?$ii;osY .No 31e' Natraj Nagar, Raje.ndritnasar Hvderabad, ot''udpcl,-461j'L],",,it"is vears,-6Jau5ffi;::'*r'"18*fr3. Y?i'k1',5;il?: o pa, B h a i ma l r i, B i d a r biit, i,it lpt.liii v h",l. fu irs x i. nL,i e r b nlii iliE I ir "tJ'tso I I i l l 2 AND

1. 2 t i8lffi Ta?B8ri'U3r,,:f,[ft n?:3i,.J"",11ilg.',,?_",Y[i"J,ff i"kLey,andLorry ...PETITtONERS Ils.'"'i:""",J,,114ffi ilB"[:fl ,rJ,i:'.IJil?#fl ,;:f; 1?l??ffJ".,:T:lArrairs, "?'r':",i::: Ilil.! Xfjf , Ra n s a Red d v D i ski ct, r n tes rated co r recto ra te, Iift Reddv Districr, r ntesrared to,?Xl,i1tjy", [:fi"",'"',lxff 3fl1""?:*[ansa I I i i I '#:?,n:"d',:'l!.?'3,f Bq,B'l,ro&."%:3i:i:,,Xi1,3:f RTftrjh"Iff %1.fi :f ' 5?'?3"#'J,J,*1i5ihL??I SJsl?,;bfi3[oo,n"n"r, o/o Assr civir Suppry 6. The Station House Officer, L. B. Nagar police Station, Ranga Reddy District o, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the action of the Asst. sub- lnspector of Police seizing the Lorry Bearing No. KA 56 lgoT ofthe second petitioner together with 31. 7 Tonnes of rice of the first petitioner, dated 0g. 03. 2024, in case in Crime No. 3OB of 2024, dated 08. 03.2,24on the ground that the petitioners illegally transporting Rice from Hyderabad to Gujarat, as the same is illegal' arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequenfly direct the rel the second pet t oner "r:ir"Jtff :lT'H::: l, T:':: i: fl::J:::: seized in Crime No. 3OB o,f 2024, dated 0g.03.2024. IA NO;10F 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to rerease Lorry Bearing No. KA 56 7BO7 0f the second petitioner together with 3'r - 7 Tonnes of rice of the First petitioner seized in crime No. 308 of 2024, dated 08. 03. ZO24 of the petitioner, during pendency of the present writ petition and pass such other rerief or reriefs as this Honbre court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 20F 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telanoar ro o o in o cru r dilru i, ?,.8: R,iJ,i :., !Ji!?#fl , ff i!", lxll 3i;; r "; oou,'.., ' IlR"??':",i:::l:'YJr:Hgf-')' Ransa Reddv District, rntesrated corectorare, 3 Ihg Districr Civit St corectorate, nt xonsrifliyn, flXot"?:or5:'n, Reddv District, rntesrated 'I[?,ff 8',:'l:f 'Ei,iBr,BiroJ#f;:*.ji:,,i.,.:l,B:f t 8?ri"8"ff y" J,*1'Jff hL??I FJil"r'J,;,?,:r",""n" r, o/, Asst c ivir S upp ry RJ,Xn"h"E3lnd.n:fl 0, AND 1 2 3 ;f -$;t[;l*:$"**:i{iffi tr.sjfiiiia'ri]fl ],?,:b# ...PETITIONERS fi 3lflf Tr ?BB,l'#3(,Tfft lg: lp vs, p' occ owner rhestatonr",,"oo,"".-.{l-tj'r.,#-,s:1,::}:f fl ff ;TJ' ...RESPONDENTS Petiticin under Section 151 cpc praying that in the ci.cumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim order granted in l.A.No.1/2024 in Wp.No. g59812024, Dt: 03.04.2024 and dismiss the Writ petition. SRt SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Counset for the petitioners: Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to S: Gp FOR CIV|L SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI w.P.NO s.3 1924 AND 8598 0F 2o24 coMMON ORDER: In both these writ petitions, the . petitioners are challenging the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing notice No'c-A case No.A7ls4lcS /2024, dared 25.10.2024 in W. P. No.3 1924 of 2024 and also the action of the Assistant Sub Inspector of police (ASI) in seizing of lorry bearing No.KA56 7g07 along with stock in W.p.No.859g of 2024 as illegal, arbitrary and to pass such other order or orders in the inte rest ol.iusticc.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised [he basic objection that Assistant Sub_Inspector of police (ASI) could not intercept and seize the stock and vehicle. He rclied upon thc Clause 16 (l) of the Telangana State public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, to submit that ASI of police is not an authorized person to seize on behalf of the Government, but it,s only an oflicer not below the rank oI Sub_lnspector ol police, who is authorized to in tercept and seize the vehicre and stocks of scheduled commodities. But in this case admittedly, it is the ASI of Police, who intercepted and seized the stock and vehicle and therefore, it is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners t 2 also placed reliance upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.344O4 of 201 3, daLed. 02.12.2073.

3. I-earned Government pleader for C;vil Supplies fairly admittr:d thaL the issue is covered by the de,:ision of this Court in W.p.\c.344O4 of 20 13.

4. In ,".iew of the same, since the off. cer who has intercepted and scized stocks in both of these wril. petitions is ASI of Police anci not lhe authorized person as per :he Clause L6 (1) of the Telangana State public Distribution Syst,:m (Control) Order, 2016 and as hclcl by this Court in W.p.No.3.l.+04 of 2013, the seizure ts bad in lar.l.. The seizurc is accordingly s;et aside.

5. The ofljce rs directecl to append a copl cf. the order dated 02. 12.2O13 passcrl in W.p.No.344O4 of 20li\ to this Writ Petition for ready rr:ference.

6. Acc:ordrngly, both the writ petrtlons are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs

7. Misccllnneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stancl closed. //TRUE COPY// \ To, 1 The Principal Secretary Consumer Affairs, Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ,- SD/. I"TIRUMALA DEVI DEFUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ood arrd Civil Supplies

2. The Collector (Civil Supplies), Ranga Reddy District, lntegrated Collectorate, At Kongarkalan, Hyderabad. ts? Ir- R o, jlinn",h"Til%1,fi oistrictoToAi"iei;3t'#,roJ#".T:*"#lir,.i|,B:f ' I:fi".8i:Hto,?Xl,nji[jy,, BXo??!0,]1.n, Reddy District, rntesrated 4. The Assistant Civil S ' 5[?"3"#y,J*1?'ffh;??] FJrl"r,ga;3;"",,,n"r, o/o Asst civir suppry 6. The Station House Officer, L. B. Nagar police Station, Ranga Reddy District 7. One CC to SRI SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advocate tOpUCl t Lt ?"";l:ooio[?f clvll suPPLlES, Hish court for the state of retangana ' Iya""r:ffai""GP FOR HOME, High court for the state of retangana at 10.Two CD Copies ( Along with the copv of order dated 02.12-2013, in w.p.No. 34404 0f 2013) Bfl BSR HlGH COURT DATED: 24104t2025 CC TODAY E ,ri* -5 .-! lE , I a !) (_) oB TllE 5, '{' q 25 tpt zw ). 1 ,-,',i COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.31924 and 8598 of 2OZ4 ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS )L( THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY +Writ Petition No.3l404 of 2013 Y"Date:02.12.2013 #Between M. Harinath and another And The Joint Collector, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District and others Petitioner Respondents ! Counsel lor Petitioner: : Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy ^Counsel for Respondents- : G.P. tor Civil Supplies <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred

1. 2013 (4) ALD 241 HON'BLE SRI JUSNCE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.34404 of 2013 ORDER: This writ petition is liled for a writ of mandamus seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing 272 bags of raw i- i* 9r'8i rice each weighing 50 kgs, belong to the 1st petitioner and the orry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belong to the 2nd petitioner thrlugh proceedings dated 11.11.2013 as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure. It is stated that the lstpetitioner is having agricultural- lands; at Vatambedu Village and his father is also an agriculturist. As the paddy yielded from the 1st petitioner's land was drenched and discoloured, no lrader came forward to purchase the same du€) which the petitioner converted the same into rice and (ealized ,272 bags each weighing 50 kgs and with a view to sell the same al Nellore, he engaged 2nd petitioner's lorry bearing No.AP 05 X 30,49. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner loaded the rice into lorry on .10.11.2013. While the said lorry along with the stock was proceeding to Nellora. it was stopped by the 3rd respondent near APL Factory on NH-lt and the said lorry along with the stock were seized on suspicion that the rice belongs to PDS rice and registered a case in Crime No.216,2013 against the driver. But the petitioner contends that the rice loacied in the lorry is not PDS rice. Aggrieved by the seizure, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lhe sei;lure made by the 3rd respondent is without authority of law and without jurisdiction. As per clause 17 of AP Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 or as per clause 16 of AP State Public Distribution System (control) Order, 2008, (hereinafter known as Control Order) the power of search and sei.zure is conferred on any office of the police department not below the rank of Sub-lnspector. As the 3rd respondent is in the rank of ASl, he has no power either to search or seize the schedule commodities and therefore, he has no authority of law or jurisdiction to seize the vehicle as well as the stocks. He further submits that the 3rd respondent has kept the seized lorry and stock in the police Station. On receipt of the letter from the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent sent a report under Section 6-4 of EC Act to the .lst respondent and handedover the stock to the in-charge. Thereafler, petitioners filed a petition dated 21.11.2013, before the 1st respondent for release of stock and the lorry contending that he is an agriculturist and rice loaded in lhe lorry is resultant of paddy redizd in their lands and stating that the 3rd respondent illegally seized the stock along with the lorry without having authority of law but the 1sl respondent had not passed any orders. ln support of this contention, he relied on judgment reported in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi Viltage, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District and another v. Circle lnspector ol Police, Porumamilla police Station, ySR Kadapa District and otherfl. Heard the learned Assistant Government pleader for Civil Supplies. ln this case, admittedly seizure is made by the 3rd respondent but as per clause 17(1) of Control Order, 2008, certain officers of different departments are empowered inter atia to seize the stocks. As regards lhe Police Department it is the officers not below the rank of Sub-lnspectors, within their respective jurisdictions, who are authorised lo exercise this @wer. As per clause 16 of Ap State Public Distribution System (Controt) Order, 2008, the 3rd respondent is not authorised lo exercise the power of search and seizure of the stocks. This Courl in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi Wilage, Sattenapaili Mandal, Guntur District and another v. Circle lnsp*tor ot Poli@, Porumamitta Poli@ Station, ySR Kadapa District and others (1 supra) held that seizure made by -- Head Constabte of police Department is without jurisdiction and quashed the seizure. ln the present case also, lhe seizure was nade on suspicion. ln view of the above it is clear that seizure made on 11.11.2013, ol 272 bags of raw rice each weighing 50 kgs anct the lorry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belonging to lsr and 2nd pet tioner respectivery is without authority of taw and without jurisdiclion. Hence the same s quashed and the respondents are directed to release the seized stocks to the 1st petitioner. petitioner and the lorry to th€, 2nd With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscella.teous petitions, if any. pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed. A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date:02.12.2013 Note: CC 3 days B/o