THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No. 19405 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner-rice mill represented by partner has filed this writ petition challenging the panchanamas (mediators’ reports) dated 2.07.2011 and 4.07.2011 seizing the stocks, as illegal. 2. Respondent No.2-Assistant Supply Officer, R.R. East Division, Ranga Reddy District inspected the Petitioner’s business premises on 02-07-2011. He verified the stock register and the ground balance. He found that entries in the stock register were not up to date but made only up to 29-06-2011. On comparing the actual stock available on ground with the entries in the stock register, it was found that 77.70 quintals of paddy was less and 1269 quintals of rice and 41.50 quintals of broken rice excess. Therefore, as the ground balance did not tally with the stock register, the said stock was seized alleging contravention of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 and A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order 2008’). The Assistant Manager (Technical), APSCSC was summoned to examine whether the rice is PDS rice, who gave his report stating that it is common rice and it is not possible to say whether the rice is PDS rice. The stock was seized and handed over to Rajyalakshmi Rice Industries for safe custody. 3. The mill was again inspected on 04-07-2011 by the 3rd Respondent-Assistant Supply Officer, Uppal Circle-II, Ranga Reddy District and found shortage of 67.20 quintals of paddy, 1306.25 quintals of excess rice and 52.50 quintals of excess broken rice. It was also noticed that the stock register was not properly maintained, therefore alleging contravention of the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 the said stock was seized under panchanama dated 04.07.2011. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ to declare the aforesaid panchanamas seizing the stocks as illegal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the facts would contend that the panchanamas dated 02- 07-2011 and 04.07.2011 are at variance and both the panchanamas do not lend any credence to the allegation that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 or the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. According to the learned counsel the 2nd Respondent noticed variations in the stock of paddy, rice and broken rice of a quantity of 77.70 quintals less, 1269 quintals and 41.50 quintals of rice excess, whereas a later panchanama conducted on 04-07-2007 revealed that the variation in respect of the paddy was 67.20 quintals of less and 1306.25 quintals and 52.50 quintals of rice and broken rice respectively as excess. It is contended that the said stock under panchanama dated 02-07-2011 was not kept in the custody of the petitioner, but handed over the custody to Bhagyalakshmi Rice Industries. Therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to tamper with the stock. Hence, there could not have been any variation even in the later inspection made on 04-07- 2011. It is therefore contended that respondents 2 and 3 did not weigh the stocks and prepared the panchanamas mechanically with a view to boost up the stocks in order to implicate the petitioner. Citing clause-18 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 which says that any variation between the book and the ground stock upto 0.5% is liable to ignored, it is contended that the stock available at the time of inspection is a marginal variation and the same shall be liable to be ignored. The counsel therefore submits that the seizure under the said panchanamas is illegal. 5. I have considered the aforesaid contentions with reference to the material on record. Admittedly, the mill was inspected on 02.07.2011 and also on 04.07.2011. On both the occasions, it was found that there is a huge variation between the book entries and the ground stock. In the register, stock of paddy was shown as 107.80 quintals, rice 136.00 quintals and broken rice 4.00 quintals, whereas the actual stock 77.70 quintals of paddy was found shortage, and 1069.00 quintals of rice and 41.50 quintals of broken rice excess. In the later inspection also the shortage of paddy was found but the quantity was shown as 67.20 quintals and excess of rice and broken rice was shown as 1306.25 quintals and 52.50 quintals respectively. It is true that there is some difference in the quantities between the first panchanama and the second panchanama. But merely because there is some difference, it cannot be assumed that there was no inspection and that the panchanamas are not credible. The fact remains that the variations do exist. In fact, the deponent Soma Sudhakar was present at the time of the first inspection and signed the panchanama acknowledging the receipt of the copy. Even during the second inspection one Machikanti Narasimha, one of the partners of the mill was present during the course of inspection and signed his name acknowledging the receipt of the panchanama. 6. There is no allegation made or any material placed to support the plea that the respondent did not properly weigh the stock. These are all the disputed questions of facts which have to be gone into by a competent authority while taking action pursuant to the panchanamas. 7. In M/s. Vinayaka Agro Products v. Inspector of Police[1] cited by the petitioner this Court was dealing with a case where a tanker was in transit in the State of Andhra Pradesh without there being any sale in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, it was held that the Control Order has no application to the facts of the case and initiation of proceedings based on the panchanama was not sustainable. The said judgment, in my opinion, has no application to the facts of the case. 8. Further, the petitioner has been alleged not only regarding the variation of stock between the book and the ground balance but it is also alleged that he has not maintained his stock register as required under the Control Orders. As noticed above, admittedly, the Register was maintained only up to 29-06-2011. The petitioner seeks to offer an excuse contending that if stock register could not be maintained for any particular day due to sickness, the same is not an omission or irregularity. The petitioner seeks to rely on clause-18 (3)(b)(iii) of the Control Order, 2008. But as could be seen, it is not for one day the register was not maintained, the inspecting staff noticed that the last entries were made on 29-06- 2011 and the inspection was made three days thereafter. In any event, not all lapses in that regard is permissible. Even according to Clause-18 (3)(b)(iii) exemption is provided only if the records are not maintained due to sickness or pressure of work or unavoidable circumstances. These factors should not only be pleaded but also should be shown to have existed in an enquiry initiated by a competent authority. 9. The petitioner has approached this Court for annulling the panchanamas. No error of jurisdiction on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 has been shown warranting exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As mentioned above, contentions which are based on factual errors and differences between the two panchanamas cannot be resolved in the writ petition. The panchanamas are not the last and final proceedings and the same are liable to be adjudicated in an enquiry initiated by a competent authority under the Control Order. The petitioner can as well participate in the enquiry and plead the alleged factual errors and establish his case. As mentioned earlier, apart from the allegations as to variations in the stock contravening the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, the petitioner, as per the first panchanama, is alleged to have contravened the provisions of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. The petitioner has not raised any plea in the writ petition denying his obligation under the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. Hence the impugned panchanamas cannot be interfered with at this stage. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 19-07-2011 Skmr/Js [1] 1996 (3) ALT 673 (D.B.)