Vangaveeti Narasimha Rao v. The State Of Telangana

ll [ 3302 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 19909 OF 2016 Between:

Vangaveeti Narasimha Rao, S/o Nagaiah Hindu, Aged 61 years, Occ: Business R/o A3, Bommarillu Apartments, Srinivas Nagar, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies TS. Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad. The Distnct Collector, Nalgonda Nalgonda District- ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAtvIUS declare the orders of the 2nd respondent in Case No. CS1/8804/20'14 dated 27 -7 -2015 in confiscating 100% seized stocks of the petitioner is illegal, improper without any power or authority under law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP.

NO: 24446 0F 20161 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Case No. CS'1/880412014 dated 27-7-2015 of thd 2nd respondent by directing the respondents to release the 100% confiscated stocks of the petitioner pending disposal of the main Writ petition, l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP.

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies TS. Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda Nalgonda District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND Vangaveetr Narasimha Rao, S/o Nagaiah Hindu, Aged 61 years, Occ: Business Rt/o 43, Bommarillu Apartments, Srinivas Nagar, Kociad N/andal, Suryapet District.

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim directions dated 30.06.2016 passed in WPIvIP No.2444612017 in W.P No. 19909/2016 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI H.V.R.R. SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER

srr,J WP No.199O9 of 2016 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.199O9 of 2OL6 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the follou,'ing relief: ".-. to i.ssue an appropiote Wit, Order or direction, more partiatlarlg one in tl'Le nature of Wnt of Mandamus, to declare the orders of the 2"d respondent in Case No.CSL/8804/2014 dated 27.07.2014 in confi.scot[ng loOok seized stocks of t he petitioner as illegol, tmproper, tuithout ong power or authoitg under lant.t ......"

2.

Thc Iearned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lls in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in Sri Sai Traders, rep. by its Proprietor and others Vs. Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, Vijayawada and othersl. He lurther submits that the seizure of stocks in the present case is prior to introduction of Clause 17 (e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System \ zooo 1+1 AL't 7s8

pdge 2 of 4 SI(.J WP No.19909 oy ZoiA (control) order, 2076 (tor short ,the control order), arrd that by the date of seizure, purchase of pDS rice from the cardholders is not an offence. He further submits that in Maimuna Begum Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Chief Secretary2, this Court held that purchase of pDS rice from the cardholders is not an offence.

3. Learned Government pleader for Civil Supplies, representing the Government pleader submits that as per clause 17 (e) of the Control Order, any person, who is found to have purchased the rice supplied through hrblic Distribution System either from the card holders or from the F.p shop dealer or any other source, is liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority. However, he could not dispute that as on the date of seizure, purchase of pDS rice \ 2 2Ot6 (s) Ar,T 2So )

sr,J WP No.19909 of 2076 PDS rice from the cardholders is not an offence entailing confiscation under 6-,4, of the trssentia_l Commodities Act.

4. This Court in Maimuna Begum's cq.se (supra

2) held as under:

" A careful reading of Clause 1Z(A) of Andhra prad.esh State Public Distibution System (Control) Ord.er, 2008, shot4s that the same is attrocted if a fatr pice shop dea[er or cardhoLd.er or anA person causes internlption or interkres with the smooth distibution of scheduled commod.ities under the public distribution sgstem or other Gouemment scllemes at ang leuel ight from the Food Corporation of India god_own to the fair pice slbp point, titl the scheduled commodity reacLLes the intended benert.ciqry. From the unequiuocat plain language of this prouiston, it is cledr that it gets attracted uthen there is intenltption of food grains from the stage of FCI godown till it reaches the end benefi.ciary i.e-,cardholders. The prouision does not comprelrcnd.

ang qctiuitg relating to qng commoditg fauing under tlle Control Order, 2O08 once it reaches the cardhold.er. There is no ruhisper either in the detention order or in the grounds of detention that qnA of the detenus is interrupting tle smooth functtoning of the scheduled commodities from the FCI godown point till it reqclles intended. benefi.ciary. On the contrary, the uhole ollegdtion against the detenus ts tho]t theg haue been purchasing the pDS ice Jrom the cqrdholders. Therefore, this actiuitg of the detenus \ , compLeteLg fatLs outside Ctause 17(A) of the Control Ord.er, 2OO8.

_.._e:Bffi \ .t'

\ _./ Page 4 oJ 4 sriJ WP No.19909 of 2O16 under the 1995 Act or under the Control Ord.er, 2OOB whiclt undisputedlA is the onlg Order tho.t gouerns distribution qnd controL of ice meant for public d.istnbution sgstem, the detetLus cannot be accused of committing anA o.ffence. As the respondents Jatled to shott that the detenus haue contrauened the prouisions of ang other ControL Order framed under Section 3 ofthe 1995 Act, the alleged actruities of the detenus are not liable for ang penal action. Once their actiuittes do not constitute an offence under law, their preuentiue detention under the provisions of the 19g0 Act ccznnot be sustained".

i 5.

Following the judgment of this Court in Maimuna Begurn,s case (suprcl 2) and for the reasons alike, this writ petition is a_llowed. No order as to costs.

6.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall sland el_Sqgd.

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT RqGISTRAR //rRUE CoPY/'

,k --.._ To, SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies TS, The State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

3. One CC to SRI H.V.R.R. SWAIVIY, Advocate [OPUC]

4. TWO CCS tO GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPIVIENT. HiOh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BN KKSq

t HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023 s ( o trfl M t, * * j j

ORDER

WP.No.19909 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ie 92 ,u, b