IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20054 of 2008 Between: Bodhanapu Srinivasulu S/o. Venkateshwarlu Transport contractor, R/o. D.NO.1/138, Gopavaram Village, Proddatur Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Cuddapah District. 2 The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) Cuddapah District. 3 The Tahsildar, Proddatur Mandal, Cuddapah District. 4 The Station House Officer, Proddatur Rural Police Station, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizure of the stock of 209 bags of PDS Rice, belongs to the petitioner on 29.03.2008, in absence of any contraventions of the provisions of section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, is arbitrary unreasonable and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to release of stock of 209 bags of PDS Rice forthwtih and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:BOYARAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W. P. No.20054 of 2008 ORDER This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in seizing 209 bags of Public Distribution System rice on 29-03-2008 as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to release the said stock to the petitioner forthwith. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a transport contractor of Stage.II, Proddutur Mandal by the Joint Collector, Cuddapah under unemployment beneﬁciary scheme. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the petitioner was transporting PDS Rice, wheat, sugar and other items allotted to the fair price shop dealers from the Mandal Levy Stock Point, Proddutur to the respective fair price shops. For the said purpose, he took on lease a Mini Lorry bearing No.AP- 21U-1284 under an agreement of lease. In the month of December 2007 the petitioner was also entrusted with transportation of PDS Rice in Rajupalem Mandal since the transport contractor of said Mandal was not available. While so, on 26-03-2008 the petitioner lifted 209 bags of rice as per the release order for transporting the same to various fair price shops in Rajupalem Mandal and instructed the driver of the vehicle to deliver the same to the respective dealers. However on the way, the vehicle was intercepted by the Police and the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector lodged a complaint before the SHO, Proddutur Rural P.S. alleging illegal diversion of PDS Rice by the petitioner and the owner and driver of the vehicle. Accordingly the entire stock was seized and the same was entrusted to the fair price shop dealer of Shop No.28 of Proddutur for safe custody. Thereafter Cr.No.63 of 2008 was registered on the ﬁle of the 4th respondent under Section.407 and 420 of IPC as well as Sec.7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. It is alleged that during the course of investigation the petitioner’s signature was obtained by coercion on a confessional statement that he had committed diversion of stock voluntarily. On the basis of the said confessional statement a charge sheet was ﬁled on 11-07-2008 in the Court of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Proddutur and the further proceedings are pending. Even the seized stock of rice entrusted to the fair price shop dealer for safe-custody remained in his custody till date. Hence the present writ petition contending inter alia that the impugned seizure is arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents to release the stock forthwith. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the alleged diversion of route by the driver is absolutely false and without any basis and at any rate the same does not constitute contravention of any of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) or the Control Orders made there under. Thus according to the learned counsel the penal provision under Section.7(1) of the Act cannot be invoked against the petitioner. While placing much reliance upon the letter dated.26-03-2008 addressed by the S.I of Police, Proddutor Rural P.S. to the Mandal Tahasildar,. Proddutor, the learned counsel also contended that the impugned seizure was only on mere suspicion and no case was made out to show that there was contravention of any provision of law. As noticed above, a charge sheet has already been ﬁled before the competent Court after completing the investigation in Cr.No.63 of 2008 and the further proceedings are pending. Hence, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to go into the merits of the case and express any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations against the petitioner. So far as the seized stock is concerned, it is not in dispute that the said stock is meant for distribution under Public Distribution System. Absolutely no case is made out to show that the petitioner, who is only a transporter, is entitled for release of the said rice. Hence the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. However, having regard to the plea of the petitioner that from the date of seizure on 29-03-2008 the seized PDS rice is lying with the custodian, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate steps expeditiously for disposal of the same as permissible under law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.09.2008 *TSNR