IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15539 of 2005 Between: A.Kamaraju S/o. Venktarathnam Ambakandi Village Pegidi Amudalavalasa Mandal SriKakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer Rajam, Rajam Mandal Sri Kakulam District. 2 The Joint Collector Srikakulam, Sri Kakulam District. R2 is impleaded as per court order dt. 22-11-2005 in WPMP 29595 of 2005 ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing 220 quintals of rice to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the said quantity of rice or in the alternative to direct the respondents to pay Rs.2,15,866/- being the cost of the rice with interest at 15% per annum. On 20-06-2002, the respondents seized 560.80 quintals of paddy, 36.30 quintals of rice and 437 quintals of broken rice from the petitioner’s Mill. On the same day, the respondents also seized 220 quintals of rice supplied by the petitioner to the Food Corporation of India on 16-04-2002 and lying in the SWC Godown as the said stock was not accepted by the Food Corporation of India on the ground that the supply was not in conformity with the speciﬁcation. The said seizure was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.11430 of 2002. This Court, by order dated 04-10-2002, disposed of the said writ petition along with a batch of other writ petitions, wherein while holding that in respect of the stocks seized from the Mill of the petitioner and others they shall be released in view of the removal of licensing requirements, stock limits and movement restrictions on Speciﬁed Food Stuﬀs Order, 2002 (for short “2002 Order”), however, with respect to the quantity of 220 quintals seized from the SWC Godown, gave liberty to the respondents to dispose of the same and keep the sale proceeds in the revenue deposit in view of the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Initiation of criminal proceedings was questioned by the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3137 of 2004. By order dated 29-10-2004, this Court quashed the said criminal proceedings, in view of the 2002 Order. Following the said order, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 05-05-2005, wherein he took note of the fact that proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the 1955 Act”) were initiated and show cause notice under Section 6B of the 1955 Act was issued. After referring to the various proceedings including order dated 29-10-2004, passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3137 of 2004, he directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to release the seized stock in favour of the petitioner and if the same was disposed of through public distribution system, the value of the stock shall be released to him. The petitioner, in this writ petition, claimed return of the seized stock of 220 quintals of rice or in the alternative to direct the respondents to pay the sum of Rs.2,15,866/- towards its cost with interest at 15% per annum. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it is, inter alia, stated that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Regidi Amadalavalasa and Rajam seized various stocks including 220 quintals of rice lying in the SWC Godown on the ground that the petitioner was doing clandestine business by purchasing Food for Work rice and other rice meant for public distribution and was supplying the same to the Food Corporation of India as Mill Levy and contravened the provisions of Clauses 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6(9), 14, 15, 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984; that a case under Section 6A of the 1955 Act was instituted and show cause notice dated 22-06-2002 was issued. It is also averred that in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.11430 of 2002 and batch, after releasing the stocks seized from the mill premises of the petitioner, 220 quintals of stock was distributed through public distribution system and sale proceeds amounting to Rs.1,12,658/- was kept in the revenue deposit. He further stated that consequent on the quashing of the criminal proceedings, order was passed on 05-05-2005 to release the stock in favour of the petitioner or the value thereof, if the same was distributed through public distribution system and that accordingly the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has drawn an amount of Rs.1,12,650/- by way of D.D.No.682505 dated 18-08-2005 and sent the same to the petitioner through Oﬃce attender, but the same could not be delivered to him as he was not available in the Village. At the hearing, Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the criminal proceedings were quashed, the petitioner is entitled to either the release of the seized stock or its market value, and that there is no justiﬁcation to cause loss to the petitioner by paying the sale proceeds derived from the sale of the rice through public distribution system at controlled price. Under Section 6A (2) of the 1955 Act, where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in public interest so to do, he may order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, ﬁxed for such essential commodity under the Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or where no such price is ﬁxed, order the same to be sold by public auction. Under sub-section (3) of Section 6A of the 1955 Act, where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction, or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized where no order of conﬁscation is ultimately passed by the Collector; where an order passed on appeal under sub- section (1) of Section 6C so requires, or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of conﬁscation has been made under this Section, the person concerned is acquitted. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that proceedings under Section 6A of the 1955 Act were initiated. But the said proceedings did not result in conﬁscation and the prosecution launched against the petitioner was quashed by this Court. Therefore, this case squarely falls under sub-section 3(a) and also (c) of Section 6A of the 1955 Act. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be paid the sale proceeds. Though there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the proceedings did not end in conﬁscation, there is no justiﬁcation to subject the owner of the seized stock to loss by paying him only the controlled price, the petitioner did not question the vires of the above mentioned provision. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 6A of the 1955 Act itself is wholly misconceived, the petitioner has not prayed for invalidation of the said proceedings. Unless in a properly constituted proceedings, the petitioner questions the very initiation of the proceedings under Section 6A of the 1955 Act, seizure and sale of the stocks, he is bound by the statutory provision under which he is entitled to refund of the value of the stocks seized and sold. Moreover, the petitioner has not questioned order dated 05-05-2005 passed by respondent No.2, wherein he directed payment of the value of the stock, if the same was already sold through public distribution system. Pursuant to the liberty given by this Court, the stock was sold through public distribution system. Under the above mentioned circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled only to the sale proceeds derived through such distribution. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to forthwith pay the sum of Rs.1,12,650/- to the petitioner. Since the fact that the respondents were prepared to pay the above said sum of Rs.1,12,650/- is not disputed by the petitioner, in my considered view, the respondents are not liable to pay interest. However if the amount was kept in Fixed Deposit, the interest derived thereon shall be paid to the petitioner. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th August, 2008 vrn