THE HON'BLE SHI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD v. Buildings, Hyderabad and olhers

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstiances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FtR No. 133 of 2016 of-P.S Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. l-A- NO: I OF 20'l P. NO : 3087 OF 2016) Between: The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad The Deputy Tahsitdar (Civil Supplies), Huzurabad, Karimnagar. District. 2 ...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS AND village, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. 1 Akula. Ramesh, s/o. Mogiliah, Aged.33 years, Occ: Business, proprietor of M/s. Sri Raghuram Traders, Rl/o. H.No.9-145, Warangal Road, Huzuabad proper and Mandal, Karimnagar Districl. 2 Y ada Santhosh, s/o. Prabhakar, Aged. 25 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Sircedu 3 Narra Raju, S/o Bhum Reddy, Aged. 26 y,ears, Occ: Driver of vehicle, R/o. 4 Kallem. Thirupathi Reddy, s/o. Raji Reddy, Aged. 45 years, Occ: owner of the vehicle. R/o. Bhogumpad H/o. Sircedu village, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnaqar District ...RE''.NDENTS / pETTaoNERS Bhogumpad (H), Sircedu (V), Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. 5 The Station House officer, P.S., Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. (Respondent No. 5 is not necessary party in this Petition) ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT 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 vacate the interim orders dated 03.06.2016 passed in W.P.M.P No.21218 of 2016 in W.P No 17245 of 2016 and dismiss the W.P and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K VENUMAOHAV Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI B. SRIDHAR, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER a\ l \ I ! i THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17245 ot20l6 OR"DER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.l33 of 2016 on tlre file of Huzurabad Police Statoin, Karimnagar, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for shorl 'IPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Comrnodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act'). 2- Heard Sri K-Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Government t { Pleader for Home appearing for responderrt No.2. 3 - During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order dated 13-07 -2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No.78 I I of 2016 and batch- 4- Learned Assistant Govcnunent Plcader for Home has not disputed the same. 2 -(- a

5. In vicw of the above said submission, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.p.No.7gl I of 2016 and batch, dated 13.07.2016. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAP- SINGH, Wednesday, The Seventeenth Day Of September Two Thousand And Twenty Five sd/-s. UNA RAO TANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// ON OFFICER ------> I To, t Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana, l-lyderabad. 1 The Principal Secretary to the Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, 2 The Station House officer, P.S., Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 3. The Deputy Tahsildar (Civit Supplies), Huzurabad, Karimnagar. District. 4 One CC to SRI K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC! 5 Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State of 6 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI 7 Two CD Copies Telangana. IOUT] I\,'IM T/DLYAlonq with the Copy of order dated 1310712O16 in W.P.No. 781 1 of 2016) HIGH COURT DATED:1710912025 ORDER WP.No.17245 of 2016 ; if 1t, C c) ?{iAN 2[28 * I I ) ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 V '*6d^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAO FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRAOESH CASE No- WP.Nos.78l'1, 16387, 16401, 16601, 7815, 8012 & 91 1 1 0f 2016 Eetween: Maimuna Begum ... Petitioner (W.P.No.7811o12016) AND The State of Telangana, rep.by its Chief Secretary, T.S.Secretarial Burldings. Hyderabad and others ... Respondents (W.P.No.7811o12016) DATE OFJUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13th July,2O16 THE HON'8LE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SBIJUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Whether reporters of local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the judgment? Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No lair copy ol the judgment? 2 3 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDOY, J G.SHYAM PRASAD, J . THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SHI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD i_WP Nos.7811. 16387. 16401.

7815.8012 & 9111 of 2016 + DT.13.07.2016 # Maimuna Bequm Vs. ..,Pelitroner (W P.No 7811 of 2016) $ The State of Telangana, rep.by its Chiel Secretary. T.S.Secretatiat Buildings, Hyderabad and olhers ... Respondents (W.P.No.7811o12016) ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.H.V.R.R-Swamy ! Counsel tor the respondents: GP for Home (fS) < Gist: > Head note: ? Cases relerred: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD n 11 1 A1A7 1 A/lrl1 1 6An 1

7815.8012&9111of2016 Dared 1$r July. 2016 Between: Maimuna Begum .....Petitioner (w.P_No.781 I oi 2016) And The State ol Telangana, rep.by its Chief Secretary, T.S.Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents (W.P.No 7a11 of2016) Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy Counsel for the Respondents: GP lor Home (TS) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ANO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition Nos-7811.16387. 14rc1. 16601.

7815. 8o12 & 9111 oI2016 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) These wril petitions raise common legal issues, besides separate but identical detention orders being challenged therein. Each of lhe detenus is detained under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Prevention of the Black lvlarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act. I 980 (for short 'the 1980 Act;). The gravamen of the allegation on which the delenus have been detained is thal 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.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (hereinafter refened to as'the Control Order, 2008') rl^/ Section 7 ofthe Essential Commodities Act, 1995 (for short'the 1995 Act'). ln the grounds of detention, it is specifically alleged that the material placed before respondent No.2 revealed that the detenus have been doing illegal and clandestine business of purchasing PDS rice and other commodities lrom the ration cardholders and thereafter storing and selling the same lo the needy people lor pecuniary gain. The grounds refened to and relied upon three criminal cases against each ot the deten us. Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel Ior the petitioners, submitted that the main ground of detention, namely, that the detenus have been purchasing the rice meant lor public distribution system. from ralion cardholders, even if accepted on ib face value does not constitule any offence either under the 1980 Act or the 1995 Act or under the Control Order, 2008. The learned counsel further submined that the commodity of rice in respect of which allegation of illegal purchase, storing and sale is made againsl lhe detenus is only a scheduled commodity under the Control Order, 2008 and that as the activity of the detenus refened to above does nol contravene any of the provisions of the Control Order, 2008, the detenus are not liable for any penal consequences and consequently the very ground on which the detenus have been detained is unsustainable in law and the detention orders are therefore liable to be quashed. The learned Government Pleader for Home (TS) submitted that since rice is a foodstuff within the meaning of'foodstuffs' included in entry (3) of the schedule to the 1995 Act, any contravention thereof constitutes an offence. He has further submitted that as the activity of the detenus, namely, bulk purchase of rice meant for public distribution system lrom the cardholders and selling the same ror higher prices, is de-reiling the whole public distribution system and thereby it as aflecting lhe public order- We have carefully considered the submissions ol the leamed counsel for the respective parties. The detention orders were passed under Section 3 of the 1980 Act. Under the said provision, if a person is found acting in any manner preiudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, he can be detained under an order to be made by the authorities refened 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 punishaue under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 ol 1955), or under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control ot .the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in any bommodity essential to the community; or (b) dealing in any commodity - which is an essential commodity as defined in the (i) (ii) Essenlial Commodities Act, 1955 (10 ot 1955);or with respect to which provisions have been made 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 defeat or tend to deteat the provisions oI that Act or other law aforesaid." We shall proceed for the purpose of these cases that the rice being a foodstutf is an essenlial commodity. The question lhen is whether mere purchase ol rice meant for public distribution system from the cardholders unauthorisedly for making un.iusl enrichment amounts to contravention ol any of the provisions of the 1995 Act or the Control Order, 2008. Section 7 of the 1995 Acl deals with penalties. This provision envisages that if any person contravenes any order made under Section 3 o{ the 1995 Act, he shall be punished as prescribed under. the said provision. Therefore, for a person to attract penal consequences, he is found to have contravened any of the orders made under Section 3 of the 1995 Act. The Control Order, 2008 is an Order which was made by the State in exercise ol the power conlened on it by Section 3 r/w Seclion 5 of the 1995 Act. lf the detenus carry on --any of their activities in contravention ot any of the-Ctauses-ofltre--.--.- Control Order, 2008 such activities attract penal consequences as prescribed under Section 7 of the 1 995 Act. Clause 17 of the Conlrol Order. 2008 envisages penalties for possessing cards, makanq {alse entries or diverting stock. The leamed Government Pleader conceded that t're said Clause applies to lair . ;.,- - . . price shop dealers, nominated retailers and hawkers and therelore the same has no application to the detenus who do not fall in any of these categories The only other Clause on which the learned Government Pleader placed reliance is Clause 17(A) of the Control Order, 2008 which reads as under "17.(A) lnterruption in the proc€ss ol Distributionr "No Fair Price Sh@ dealer or card holder or any person shall be allowed to cause interruption or interfere with the process ot smooth distribution ol scheduled commodities under Public Distribution system or other Government schemes al any level righi fi'om Fod Corporation ol lndia godown point to Fair Price Shop point, till the scheduled commodity reaches the intended beneficiary. Any such attempt ol interruption or intedering with such process shall be treated as an abetment and be deemed to have contravened this order, thereby committing an ottence under Section I of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955.' A careful reading of the above re-produced Clause shows that the same is attracted if a fair price shop dealer or cardholder or any person causes intenuption or interleres with the smooth distribution of scheduled commodilies under the public distribution system or other Government schemes at any level right from the Food Corporation of lndia godown to the lair price shop point, till the scheduled commodity reaches the intended beneticiary. From the unequivocal plain language ol this provision, it is clear that it gets attracted when there is interruption of tood grains trom the stage of FCI godown till it reaches the end beneficiary i.e., cardholders. The provision does not comprehend any activity relating to any commodity falling under the Control Order, 2008 once it reaches the cardholder. There is no whisper either in the detention order or ln the grounds ot detenlion lhat any of the detenus is interrupting the smooth functioning of the scheduled commodities from the FCI godown point till it reaches inlended beneficiary. On the conlrary, the whole allegation against the detenus is that they have been purchasing the PDS rice from the cardholders. Therefore, this activity ol the detenus completely lalls outside Clause 17(A) of the Control Order, 2008. Once lhere is no prohibition on such activity either under the 1995 Act or under the Control Order, 2008 which undisputedly is the only Order that govems distribution and control ol rice meant for public distribution system, the detenus cannot be accused of committing any offence. As the respondents failed to show that the delenus have contravened the provisions of any other Control Order lramed under Section 3 of the 1995 Act, the alleged activities of the detenus are not liable lor 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 lhe detenus shall be forthwith released lrom 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 '13th July, 2016 VGB