THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.1035 of 2008 (Dated : 29-01-2008) Between: Sri Raghuram & Company, Paddy Rice Commission Agents and General Merchants No.33/4, Bajana Koli Street, Red Hills, Chennai-600 052. Rep by its Proprietor K.Prabahakar. …Petitioner A n d The Joint Collector, Nellore and another …Respondents ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken notice on 24.1.2008 and requested time to get instructions. 3. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 4. Sri Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also had pointed out the discrepancies in the proceedings Rc.B.853/2007 dated 24.12.2007 and Rc.B.853/2007 dated 05.01.2008 and would maintain that this had been done only with a view to make a ground for seizure. 5. However, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would contend that apart from boiled rice, raw rice also had been mixed and this being predominantly a question of fact, let the first respondent take appropriate decision in this regard. 6. Heard both the counsel. 7. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in effecting seizure of 17 Mts. of boiled rice (340 bags each weighing 50 Kgs) from the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 2568 on 23.12.2007 near Sullurpet and the action of the 1st respondent in not releasing the same as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the E.C.Act and to pass such other orders. 8. No doubt, there is some controversy relating to the very power of the seizure. It is stated that the petitioner is doing business as commission agent in paddy and rice in the name and style of Sri Raghuram & Company, mainly dealing in boiled rice. As there was an order from Nava Bharat International Private Limited, Pollamraju Nagar, Kakinda Port, Kakinada for supply of 340 bags of boiled rice (each weighing 50 kgs.), the stock has been loaded in to the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 2568 for transport under a valid bill bearing No.138 dated 22.12.2007. According to the petitioner, the stock is being transported along with all relevant records including a delivery note. It is stated that soon after the lorry reached Sullurpet, the driver of the lorry, who is native of Sullurpet parked the lorry on National Highway No.5 near High tech fashion building and went to his home and at that time, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Nellore have seized the lorry along with the stocks, in spite of showing all the records by the cleaner of the lorry, and handed over the same to the Station House Officer, Sullurpet for custody on 23.12.2007. It is further stated that the second respondent sent a fax message vide Rc.B.853/2007 to the Joint Collector, Nellore, the 1st respondent herein on 23.12.2007 stating therein that the Vigilance and Enforcement Officers have seized lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 2568 on National Highway No.5 near Hightech Fashion Building and the lorry along with the stock of rice had been handed over to the S.H.O., Sullurpet. 9. After coming to know about the seizure of the stocks, it is stated that the writ petitioner along with the owner of the lorry filed a petition on 2.1.2008 before the 1st respondent for release of the stocks and the lorry. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent ordered for release of the lorry and did not pass any orders for release of the seized stocks. The petitioner would contend that neither the Vigilance and Enforcement Officers nor the 2nd respondent have prepared any panchanama while seizing the stocks as contemplated under Section 100 of Cr.P.C and hence the same is illegal. It is stated that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.60, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS.1) Dept., dated 27-7-2000 with a view to provide remunerative prices to the farmers and to ensure sale of paddy and rice in other States removing restrictions on the movement of paddy and rice within the State and outside and in compliance of the said orders, the first respondent has issued a circular Rc.D.45/2000 dated 5.8.2000 directing all the Enforcement Officials that there shall be no restrictions on movement of paddy and rice both within the State and the vehicles carrying the consignment may be allowed to move freely. It is stated that in spite of the said circular, the boiled rice transported by the petitioner was seized by the Vigilance and Enforcement authorities. 10. It is relevant to mention that the second respondent sent another report to the first respondent vide Rc.853/07 dated 5.1.2008 stating that the Vigilance and Enforcement team of Nellore has stopped the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 2568 on N.H.No.5 near Jyothi Weigh Bridge, Sullurpet and when the Cleaner of the lorry failed to produce records, they seized the lorry with stocks and handed over the same to the S.H.O., Sullurpet for safe custody. It is further stated that they found 326 bags of boiled rice and 15 bags of boiled rice, 6 bags of raw and one bag of boiled and raw rice mixed. It is stated by the petitioner that the second report of the 2nd respondent is quite contrary to his 1st report. In the 1st report, it is stated that the lorry along with the stocks was seized on N.H.5 road near Hightech Fashion Building, Kotapolur village and that the driver and the owner of the lorry were not available, whereas in the second report, it is stated that the Vigilance officials stopped the lorry on N.H.5 near Jyothi Weigh Bridge, Sullurpet. Thus, the petitioner would contend that though there is stock of 340 bags boiled rice in the lorry, the 2nd respondent has planted 6 bags of raw rice, one bag of boiled and raw rice mixed and also one more bag of boiled rice in addition to 340 bags of boiled rice and the seizure is affected without there being any violation of any of the provisions of the E.C.Act. 11. Moreover, it is admitted that the seized stock is boiled rice, which is being transported under valid bill and deliver note. Therefore, the 2nd respondent or the Vigilance Enforcement Officers have no authority of law to seize the commodities. As the seizure itself is illegal, the 1st respondent cannot initiate the proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act. Therefore, the petitioner prays that if the stocks are not released, he would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. 12. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to release the seized 17 Mts. of boiled rice, i.e., 340 bags (each weighing 50 Kgs.) seized from the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 2568 forthwith, after taking an undertaking from the petitioner in this regard. It is needless to mention that the release of stocks would be subject to further enquiry, if any. 13. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated : 29-01-2008 NOTE:-Issue C.C today (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.1035 of 2008 (Dated : 29-01-2008)