Pallipamu Yesu Ratnam, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19583 OF 2017 ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came to be filed seeking to declare the action of the second respondent in seizing the maize seeds from Monica Seeds, Koppulavaridgudem, Denduluru Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri Rahul Sarella, learned counsel for the implead petitioner-R-6. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Since this Court is not passing any orders against respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, there is no necessity to issue any notice to them.

As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners, who claim to be farmers, along with other farmers, have raised maize seeds variety in their lands situated in the surroundings of Musunuru Mandal. After growing the maize seeds, the petitioners dumped their crop in the premises of Monica Seeds, Koppulavarigudem, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District for the purpose of drying and processing such seeds, so as to sell them in public market. Subsequently, petitioners came to know that said seeds were seized by the 2nd respondent. On enquiry, the petitioners learnt that basing on the report lodged by one Mangal Urbadutt Pandey, who is the analyst/investigator in the Corporate Office of the Company situated at Pune, the second respondent registered a case in crime No.58 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 70 and 72 of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 against Edupuganti Rammohana Rao, M.Ravi and Uppalapati Venkateswara Rao. During

the course of investigation, it was noticed that the petitioners were growing the maize seeds of the complainant's Company. In those circumstances, the police along with officials seized the seeds, which were grown by the petitioners and other farmers, and subsequently the mediator's report was drafted in the presence of VRO, VRA and investigation officer. The action of the Police in seizing the property is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that said property belongs to petitioners and if the said property is not released, they would be put to loss and sufferance. Learned counsel for R-6 Syngenta Indian Limited submits that petitioners herein have raised the crop by duplicating the seeds and as such their (R-6) agent lodged a report. As such, it is urged that the question of releasing the stock in favour of the petitioners would not arise.

A perusal of the material on record would show that some of the farmers filed Crl.M.P.No.683/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole, under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking release of the seeds stock, which is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition. By an order dated 16.08.2016, the learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said application holding that the petitioners therein failed to prove their ownership over the seeds property and as such they are not entitled for return of the property. Challenging the same, petitioners therein preferred Crl.R.P.No.91 of 2016, which was dismissed on merits by the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, vide order dated 29.12.2016. While dismissing the said revision, the learned Sessions Judge observed as follows:

"9.

By the facts of the case, at this stage, as it is difficult for the court to ascertain who is the rightful claimant, and as the seized property is agricultural produce, leaving the task of ascertainment of rightful claimant and disbursement to the trial court at appropriate stage, in the interest of justice, directing the investigating officer to sell/auction the seized Maize and to deposit the sale proceeds into the trial court found proper. However, to secure the interests of the prosecution and the rightful claimants, the sale/auction must be conducted in following manner:

1.

The quantum of the seized Maize/produce shall be carefully ascertained.

2.

Out of the stock the required sample of the maize shall be secured.

3.

The seized property shall be sold/auctioned through Agricultural Marketing Committee.

4.

The above proceedings shall be conducted in the presence of Mediators, complainant, the accused and the Agriculture expert, preferably, Jurisdictional Agricultural Officer. 5.

Each of the proceedings shall be recorded in detail under mediators report with due signatures of all the participating members including the complainant and the accused.

6.

The proceedings may also be recorded in audio and video made.

7.

The sample shall be diligently secured under certification by the Agricultural Officer.

8.

The realized consideration shall be deposited in the form of FDRs before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

9.

The trial court shall disburse the amounts to the rightful claimants subject to result of the criminal case.

10.

The proceedings shall be initiated as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of." The said order has become final as the same is not challenged. It appears that since some of the riots were unsuccessful in getting an order from the Courts below, petitioners herein approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking release of the stocks. Though the petitioners before the Courts below and this Court are different, the issue involved herein was already adjudicated by the Court below. The findings given by the Criminal Courts have become final, as the same remained unchallenged. Hence, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioners herein cannot be accepted. In fact, the petitioners could not have availed a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a competent Criminal Court is ceased of the matter.

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if really the petitioners are aggrieved by any action/order of any authority, they are always at liberty to avail the appropriate remedies available under law.

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 20.06.2017 sur