THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.14126 of 2006 Date : 14-12-2010 Between : Shri Nagandla Satyanarayan and 2 Others .. Petitioners and The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.14126 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners, who suffered an order of confiscation of 80% of 902 bags of paddy in Proceedings under Section 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act, who later succeeded in appeal under Section 6(C) of the Act, have filed this Writ Petition to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the value of the confiscated goods in pursuance of the orders in appeal, as illegal. The 2nd Respondent initiated proceedings under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioners in M.C.No.43 of 2001 alleging that the petitioners were conducting clandestine business in essential commodities. Stock of 902 bags of paddy was seized from the petitioners. The petitioners were found guilty in 6(A) proceedings and the 2nd Respondent ordered confiscation of 80% of the said stock by orders dated 24-05-2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a statutory appeal being Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. The said appeal was allowed by orders dated 16-05-2005 to the following result : “In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled for release of value of entire stock confiscated from respondent No.1. If the respondent No.1 fails to return the value of entire stock confiscated within three months, the appellants are entitled for interest at 9% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of payment.” Since the appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed, it was incumbent upon the 2nd Respondent to release the value of the stock. However, as the 2nd Respondent did not do so, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. The 2nd respondent filed a counter in the Writ Petition and took the stand that aggrieved by the orders passed in the Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2002, he has preferred a Revision Case in this Court and the refund of value of the confiscated stock could not be released due to the filing of the Criminal Revision. On such statement, this Court called for the concerned file and perused the same. The 2nd Respondent filed the Criminal Petition with a delay of 327 days and ultimately the revision was numbered as Criminal Revision Case No.1833 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by orders dated 06-12-2007. It is therefore evident that the objection, if any, to refund the value to the petitioners no longer existed after 06-12-2007. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that till date the petitioners have not received the refund. It is unfortunate that despite the dismissal of the revision case more than 3 years ago, the 2nd Respondent has not chosen to refund the amount. There is absolutely no justification on the part of the 2nd Respondent to retain the amount to which he is not legally entitled to. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs directing the 2nd Respondent to release the value of the entire stock confiscated with interest as per the Orders in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2002, dated 16- 05-2005 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 14th December, 2010. skmr