AP Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 - AP State Public Distribution System (control) Order, 2008 - A.S.I. seized the lorry and rice of an agriculturist -petition was pending - filed writ - High court quashed the seizer and search and directed to release the vehicle and stock = 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 seizure is conferred on any office of the police department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. = M. Harinath and another... Petitioner The Joint Collector, Nellore,S.P.S.R. Nellore District and others.... Respondents = Published in / Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10603

AP Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation)  Order, 2008 - AP State Public Distribution System (control) Order, 2008 - A.S.I. seized the lorry and rice of an agriculturist -petition was pending - filed writ - High court quashed the seizer and search and directed to release the vehicle and stock =
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
seizure is conferred on any office of the police department not below the rank
of Sub-Inspector.  
As the 3rd respondent is in the rank of ASI, 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.
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 the lorry is
resultant of paddy realized in their lands and stating that the 3rd respondent
illegally seized the stock along with the lorry without having authority of law
but the 1st respondent had not passed any orders. =
This
Court in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur
District and another v.  Circle Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station,
YSR Kadapa District and others (1 supra) 
held that seizure made by Head
Constable of Police Department is without jurisdiction and quashed the seizure.
In the present case also, the seizure was made on suspicion.  
In view of the
above it is clear that seizure made on 11.11.2013, of 272 bags of raw rice each
weighing 50 kgs and the lorry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belonging to 1st and 2nd
petitioner respectively is without authority of law and without jurisdiction.
Hence the same is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the seized
stocks to the 1st petitioner and the lorry to the 2nd petitioner.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.  

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY          

Writ Petition No.34404 of 2013

02-12-2013

M. Harinath and another... Petitioner

The Joint Collector, Nellore,S.P.S.R. Nellore District and others....
Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy

Counsel for Respondents- : G.P. for Civil Supplies

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

1. 2013 (4) ALD 241

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY        

WRIT PETITON No.34404 of 2013  

ORDER:

        This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus seeking to declare the
action of the 2nd respondent in seizing 272 bags of raw rice each weighing 50
kgs, belong to the 1st petitioner and the lorry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belong
to the 2nd petitioner through 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 1st petitioner 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 trader came
forward to purchase the same due to which the petitioner converted the same into
rice and realized 272 bags each weighing 50 kgs and with a view to sell the same
at Nellore, he engaged 2nd petitioner's lorry bearing No.AP 05 X 3049.
Thereafter, the 1st petitioner loaded the rice into lorry on 10.11.2013.  While
the said lorry along with the stock was proceeding to Nellore, it was stopped by
the 3rd respondent near APL Factory on NH-5 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 loaded in the lorry is not PDS rice.
Aggrieved by the seizure,
the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure 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
seizure is conferred on any office of the police department not below the rank
of Sub-Inspector.  As the 3rd respondent is in the rank of ASI, 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-A of EC Act to the 1st respondent
and handedover the stock to the in-charge.  Thereafter, 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 the lorry is
resultant of paddy realized in their lands and stating that the 3rd respondent
illegally seized the stock along with the lorry without having authority of law
but the 1st respondent had not passed any orders.  In support of this
contention, he relied on judgment reported in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi
Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District and another v.  Circle Inspector
of Police, Porumamilla Police Station, YSR Kadapa District and others1.
Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
In 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 alia to seize the stocks.  As regards the Police Department it
is the officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspectors, within their respective
jurisdictions, who are authorised to exercise this power.  As per clause 16 of
AP State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the 3rd respondent is
not authorised to exercise the power of search and seizure of the stocks.  This
Court in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur
District and another v.  Circle Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station,
YSR Kadapa District and others (1 supra)
held that seizure made by Head
Constable of Police Department is without jurisdiction and quashed the seizure.
In the present case also, the seizure was made on suspicion.  
In view of the
above it is clear that seizure made on 11.11.2013, of 272 bags of raw rice each
weighing 50 kgs and the lorry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belonging to 1st and 2nd
petitioner respectively is without authority of law and without jurisdiction.
Hence the same is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the seized
stocks to the 1st petitioner and the lorry to the 2nd petitioner.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.  There shall be no
order as to costs.  As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________    
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J      

Date: 02.12.2013

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