Powers of District court to pass interim orders in appeal against confiscation orders of district collector in E.C. cases = E.C. Appellate authority has got power to dispose of the miscellaneous petition also = It is not in dispute that against the orders of confiscation passed by the District Collector, an appeal lies to the District and Sessions Judge, under Section 6C of the Act. When a petition is filed in the appeal, it is for the appellate authority to entertain the same and pass appropriate orders. Even in the absence of any specific provision for passing interim order, there is an ancillary and incidental power conferred on the appellate authority to entertain the Miscellaneous Petition and pass appropriate orders on merits.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.1517 OF 2013

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 12.07.2012, in E.C.P.No.41/2012, passed by respondent No.2.

Based on a case filed by the Tahsildar, Veerullapadu, Krishna District, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), proceedings were initiated before the District Collector, Krishna District. 
On the allegation that the petitioners have contravened the provisions under certain Control Orders, stock of 230.35 quintals of PDS rice and the lorry transporting the same, were seized. 
The District Collector has passed final orders on 12.07.2012 in E.C.P.No.41/2012, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 6A of the Act, confiscating 50% value of the seized stock in favour of the Government and imposing penalty equivalent to 50% value of the seized stock on the owner of the lorry from the Bank Guarantee furnished by him. 
As against the same, E.C. Appeal No.189 of 2012, along with a Miscellaneous Petition, was preferred by the petitioners and two others before the District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 
As the appellate authority returned the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners, on the ground of maintainability, this Writ Petition is filed questioning the order of confiscation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record, the docket order, dated 29.10.2012, returning the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners in the appeal.

It is not in dispute that against the orders of confiscation passed by the District Collector, an appeal lies to the District and Sessions Judge, under Section 6C of the Act. When a petition is filed in the appeal, it is for the appellate authority to entertain the same and pass appropriate orders. 
Even in the absence of any specific provision for passing interim order, there is an ancillary and incidental power conferred on the appellate authority to entertain the Miscellaneous Petition and pass appropriate orders on merits. As it is not in dispute that the very impugned order is subject matter of appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, I do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition at this point of time.  

As it is stated that the Miscellaneous Petition is not being entertained by the appellate authority, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the appellate authority to entertain the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners in
E.C. Appeal No.189 of 2012 and pass appropriate orders on merits, as expeditiously as possible.  It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of the petitioners on merits and it is open to the appellate authority to decide the same independently and uninfluenced by any observations made in this Writ Petition.

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.

__________________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

25th February, 2013
                    
Note : 1. A copy of the order be marked to
              the learned District & Sessions Judge,
              Krishna District at Machilipatnam.

           2. Issue C.C. in one week.
                                                    B/o.MD/SSP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

























WRIT PETITION No.1517 OF 2013
















25th February, 2013

MD/SSP

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.