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

08^th February, 2013

MD

                         

            

                                                            

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

                                        

WRIT PETITION No.3810 OF 2013

8^th February, 2013

MD