Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. = purchase and sale of paddy without possessing valid licence= alleging that petitioner No.1 has indulged in clandestine business of purchase and sale of paddy without possessing valid licence and as such, contravened the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. = they are not doing any clandestine business as alleged and as the paddy seized is an agricultural produce, which was stored after harvesting the same from their fields, no licence is required.= Whether the petitioners are doing clandestine business or not, is a matter for enquiry in the proceedings initiated under Section 6A of the Act.= Till such final orders are passed, the respondents are directed not to take any steps to sell the seized commodity of paddy. It is also made clear that if any damage or deficit is noticed in the seized commodity, the petitioners are not entitled to make any claim at a later point of time.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.3810 OF 2013
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the seizure of
189.80 quintals of paddy from the house of petitioner No.1, effected on 03.01.2013.

The house premises of petitioner No.1 was inspected by the authorities of Civil Supplies Department and the available quantities of 189.80 quintals of paddy was seized, alleging that petitioner No.1 has indulged in clandestine business of purchase and sale of paddy without possessing valid licence and as such, contravened the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. 
Pursuant to the seizure, proceedings were initiated for confiscation before the Joint Collector, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and show-cause notice, dated 30.01.2013, was issued in ECAC No.4/2013, calling upon petitioner No.1 to show cause as to why the seized commodity of paddy should not be confiscated.

In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioners that
 they are not doing any clandestine business as alleged and as the paddy seized is an agricultural produce, which was stored after harvesting the same from their fields, no licence is required.

In view of the pendency of enquiry under Section 6A of the Act, it is not desirable to record any finding at this point of time. 
Whether the petitioners are doing clandestine business or not, is a matter for enquiry in the proceedings initiated under Section 6A of the Act.

Inasmuch as the seizure was effected as early as on 03.01.2013 and respondent No.1 has already issued show-cause notice under Section 6B of the Act on 30.01.2013, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate final orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from today. 
Till such final orders are passed, the respondents are directed not to take any steps to sell the seized commodity of paddy.
 It is also made clear that if any damage or deficit is noticed in the seized commodity, the petitioners are not entitled to make any claim at a later point of time. 
                        
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.  

________________________
                                            R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
08th February, 2013
MD



                         
            
                                                            











THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY





















                                        
WRIT PETITION No.3810 OF 2013






















8th February, 2013
MD

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515