Not to sale seized stock in public auction pending inquiry under sec.6 A = The petitioner is a dealer in food grains carrying on business in the name and style of ‘M/s. Naga Chandra Agro Foods’ at New Nagole, Hyderabad. On 21.01.2013, respondent No.2 along with the staff and mediators inspected the petitioner’s godown, wherein they have found 65 quintals of rice. The said stock was seized on suspicion that the same was meant for public distribution system and unauthorisedly stored by the petitioner. Assailing the initiation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and order dated 31.01.2013, directing the sale of the seized stock, the petitioner filed this Writ petition. = sale of the seized stock pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act is likely to cause financial loss to the petitioner. Hence, to balance the interests of both the parties, it is appropriate that the seized stock is not sold pending finalisation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.


THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.7427 of 2013

 

DATE: 19.03.2013

 

Between:

 

Omkar Patil, S/o.Sri Nagashetty Patil,

Hindu, 40 years, Proprietor of M/s.Naga

Chandra Agro Foods, R/o.House No.16-11-511/C/42,

Pratap Nagar, Shalivahana Nagar, Moosarambagh,

Hyderabad 500 036.

                   ..  Petitioner

          And

 

The Collector (Civil Supplies),

Ranga Reddy District at Lakdi-ka-pul,

Hyderabad

and another.                                                                   ..  Respondents


Counsel for the Petitioner                   : Mr. N.Siva Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents      : Assistant Government Pleader for
                                                    Civil Supplies









The Court made the following:

ORDER:      

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizure of 65 quintals of rice under Panchanama dated 21.01.2013, as illegal and arbitrary. 

I have heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 

The petitioner is a dealer in food grains carrying on business in the name and style of ‘M/s. Naga Chandra Agro Foods’ at New Nagole, Hyderabad.  On 21.01.2013, respondent No.2 along with the staff and mediators inspected the petitioner’s godown, wherein they have found 65 quintals of rice.  The said stock was seized on suspicion that the same was meant for public distribution system and unauthorisedly stored by the petitioner.  On the basis of the report filed by respondent No.2, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated by respondent No.1.  On 31.01.2013, respondent No.1 has passed an order directing respondent No.2 to dispose off the seized stock in public auction.  Assailing the initiation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and order dated 31.01.2013, directing the sale of the seized stock, the petitioner filed this Writ petition. 

This Court by order dated 13.03.2013, while adjourning the case for reporting instructions by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, directed that the seized stock shall not be disposed off, if the same has already not been disposed off. 

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has instructed that the seized stock has not been disposed off.

In view of the fact that serious allegation has been made against the petitioner regarding storage of the seized stock and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to interdict the said proceedings.  The petitioner is entitled to participate in the enquiry before respondent No.1.  However, sale of the seized stock pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act is likely to cause financial loss to the petitioner.  Hence, to balance the interests of both the parties, it is appropriate that the seized stock is not sold pending finalisation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. 

Accordingly while declining to interfere with the initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, respondent No.1 is directed not to sell the seized stock pending the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.9328 of 2013, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.


______________________________

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

19th March, 2013

siva/Am

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRIT PETITION No.7427 of 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE: 19.03.2013



          siva/Am

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.

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

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.