IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11366 of 2009 Between: 1 Mekala Pedda Konda Reddy S/o.M.nagi Reddy R/o.Nagul Varam Gospadu Mandal 2 Gadekari Shareef S/o.G.Sattar R/o.B.Koduru B.Atmakur Mandal 3 Gadekari Sali Saheb S/o.G.Sattar R/o.B.Koduru B.Atmakur Mandal 4 Udimela Krishna Reddy U.Rami Reddy Lakshmapuram village,Pargidela Mandal 5 Bollavaram Maheshwara REddy B.Siva Reddy BodanamVillage ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad 2 The District Collector,Kurnool District 3 The REvenue Divisional Officer,Nandyal Kurnool District 4 Asst.Supply officer (C.S) Dept.,Nandyal Kurnool District 5 D.M.R.Rural Farmers Ware House,Rythu Nagar Post Chebolu Road,Nunepally,nandyal, Kurnool District 6 The Tahasildar, Nandyal, Kurnool District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. T.BALI REDDY ASSISTED BY MR.P.VENGALA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the seizure of 69,070.50 quintals of paddy, under panchanama dated 22.05.2009, as illegal. Heard Sri T.Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 - Ware House was inspected by respondent No.4 – Assistant Supply Officer, Civil Supplies Department, Nandyal, in the presence of certain mediators, and a prima facie conclusion was arrived to the effect that certain traders have hoarded huge stocks of paddy benami in the names of agriculturists. Therefore, under the impugned panchanama, the stocks were seized. The petitioners herein and various other persons, who claim to be agriculturists and have stored their produce in respondent No.5 - Ware House, approached respondent No.2 with an application to release the seized stocks. By order dated 04.06.2009, respondent No.2 dismissed the said application. In his order, respondent No.2 observed that the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the subordinate Officers revealed that in most of the cases either the quantity stored is much higher than the actual productivity of the land or the person, in whose name the stock has been stored, is not having any land for cultivation and that these factors give rise to his suspicion that the paddy stocks are being procured by some agent or some businessmen from the ryots and stocked in respondent No.5 - Ware House in their names. Respondent No.2 also referred to the ground reality regarding the soaring prices of the old Sona Masuri rice from Rs.18/- and Rs.19/- to Rs.34/- and Rs.35/- and new Sona Masuri rice from Rs.17/- and Rs.18/- to Rs.26/- and Rs.28/-. On this premise, respondent No.2 directed interim disposal of the seized paddy through public auction by the Tahsildar, Nandyal. At the hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 has failed to examine the material produced by each of the owners of the seized paddy. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the pass books, the title deeds and the loans obtained by the owners of the stocks from the banks for raising the crop etc., would clearly reveal that the stocks belong to agriculturists and not traders and that if respondent No.2 spared proper time and examined the material produced by the petitioners and others, he would not have ordered for sale of the seized stock. The learned senior Counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in A.Siva Reddy and others vs. District Collector, Kurnool and others[1]. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and carefully perused the record. The fact that certain unscrupulous traders are creating artificial demand of rice in the market, leading to phenomenal rise in market prices of rice, is undeniable. This Court, certainly, appreciates the concern of respondent No.2 expressed in the impugned order, in this regard. However, before arriving at a conclusion that the seized stock is hoarded by the traders, it is necessary for respondent No.2 to carefully examine the material submitted by the persons, who claim to be the owners of the stocks. As noted supra, the petitioners claim to be agriculturists and that a part of the seized stock belongs to them. If genuine agriculturists have stored the food grains produced by them in their lands, there can be no justification for either seizure or sale of the stocks. In A.Siva Reddy and others vs. District Collector, Kurnool and others (1 supra), a Division Bench of this Court set aside similar Order, by which redgram was directed to be sold, and gave the following directions to the District Collector. “In view of the fact that the Collector did not hear the concerned persons and without hearing them, came to the conclusion that the Red Gram belonged to “unknown traders and benami farmers”, we direct the Collector to give notice to the persons whose names were found as owners of the Red gram at the time when the red Gram had been seized and after making a preliminary/summary enquiry, the Collector may take a fresh decision. The enquiry shall be made within six weeks from today and after hearing the concerned persons appropriate order be passed by the Collector. Needless to say that the stock which is not owned by the persons named in the record of the warehouseman and which has not been explained by the warehouseman can be dealt with in accordance with law by the Collector.” In the instant case, since the petitioners have come out with an identical plea that they are not the benamidars for traders and that they are the genuine agriculturists, who stored the food grains in the warehouse, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioners are permitted to produce all the necessary material before respondent No.2 to prove that they are agriculturists and that the paddy seized was produced by them in their agricultural lands. Respondent No.2 shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners shall appear before respondent No.2 in person on 22.06.2009. Respondent No.2 shall examine the material placed by the petitioners before him and pass appropriate speaking order after thoroughly examining the same. Till such an order is passed, the seized stock shall not be sold. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.Nos.14612 and 14613 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th JUNE, 2009. kvni [1] 2008 (6) ALT 145