IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.18413 OF 2010 DATED:30.07.2010 Between: Kandukuri Ravindra Reddy … Petitioner And The Spl. Deputy Tahsildar (PDS) Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.18413 of 2010 Order: In this writ petition the petitioner has questioned the seizure of 170 quintals of rice along with lorry bearing No.AP-27V-1455 on 20-06-2010 by conducting panchanama. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed a copy of the panchanama prepared at the time of the seizure. In the recitals of the panchanama, there is an allegation against the petitioner that he is purchasing rice which is meant for Public Distribution System (PDS) from the dealers appointed under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and selling at higher price by transporting the same to certain rice mills. It is submitted by Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there are no restrictions on purchase of PDS rice as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the said Control Order, any attempt for interruption or interfering with the supplies of PDS rice shall be treated as abetment within the meaning of Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the E.C. Act, 1955’) in which event criminal proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner, but there is no power to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Vinayaka Agro Products Vs. Inspector of Police, V.C., C.S.D., Khammam[1] and also another judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Sri Sai Traders, rep. by its Proprietor and others Vs. Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-1, Vijayawada and others[2]. Grant of licence and conditions of licence for doing business is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled commodities dealers (Licensing, storage and regulation) order 2008, a Control Order framed under the E.C. Act, 1955. The word ‘Dealer’ is defined under Clause 2(K) of the said Control Order, which reads as under: “Dealer means any person engaged in the business of purchase, movement, sale, supply, distribution or storage for sale of any of the commodities specified in the Schedule-I whether as a wholesaler or retailer or producer or manufacturer or exporter but except importer, whether or not any conjunction with any other business and includes his representatives or agent.” As per the provisions of the said Control Order, to deal in scheduled commodities, it is necessary to obtain a licence as contemplated under Form-A of Schedule IV. In that view of the matter, no person is entitled to do business without holding valid licence under the said Control Order. Although it is the contention of the petitioner that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, there is no restriction for purchase of rice meant for PDS, but, once there is an allegation that the petitioner is doing business by purchasing the said commodity and selling at higher rate, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled commodities dealers (Licensing, storage and regulation) order 2008 comes into picture so as to examine whether the petitioner violated the provisions of the said Control Order or not. In view of the specific allegations in the recitals of the Panchanama to the effect that the petitioner is purchasing commodities from dealers and selling at higher price, it is a matter for enquiry by the authority under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, 1955. Even before initiation of such enquiry and before examining the issues arising therein by the competent authority, this Court cannot go into validity of the seizure. It is also to be noticed that the quantity seized by the respondent- authority is about 170 quintals of rice, which was being transported by the petitioner without valid documents. In view of the specific allegations in the panchanama, the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner referred to supra would not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioner, so as to entertain this writ petition, to declare the seizure itself as illegal, at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 30, 2010 bnr/MRR [1] 1996 (3) ALT 73 [2] 2006 (3) ALT 758