THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.19805 of 2009 Dated: 16.09.2009 Between: Chinthala Rajesham S/o Raghavulu Petitioner And The Joint Collector (CS) Karimnagar District, Karimnagar Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.19805 of 2009 ORDER: 1 The Petitioners approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioners herein pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the seizure of the Rice 20 quintals of superfine variety and vehicle No. AP 1 W 4606 through panchanama dated 7.1.2009 and in pursuance of the said seizure passing the order by the respondent No.1 in order No. G3/39/2009 dated 28.8.2009 confiscating the 100% value of the seized stock in favour of the Government is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licesing, storage and regulation) Order, 2008 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2 The brief facts are that on 07.01.2009 when the Petitioners 1 & 2 each purchased 10 quintals of superfine variety rice for their family consumption and were taking the same in an auto bearing No.AP 1 W 4606, the third Respondent intercepted the said vehicle and seized the same under the cover of panchanama alleging that the said stocks are being carried without any permit or proper bill and the same is in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers’ (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘Control Order’). After the said seizure, the matter was reported to the first respondent who in turn initiated proceedings under Section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act and passed an order confiscating the 100% of the seized stocks through order No. G3/39/2009 dated 28.8.2009. Questioning the said order of confiscation, the Petitioners approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition. 3 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.Venu Madhav, is that the very seizure etc., is without jurisdiction and he has drawn my attention to the definition of ‘Dealer’ defined in Clause-2 (iv) of the Control Order. According to the said definition, dealer means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any one of the food grains in quantity of 20 quintals or more at any one time, or in quantity of fifty quintals or more of all food grains taken together. But, it does not include a farmer/agriculturist/ryot, who stores food grains produce by his personal cultivation or for seed purpose. The First respondent initiated proceedings under Section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act and issued a show cause notice to the petitioners for which the petitioners submitted their detailed explanation. But the first respondent without looking into the legal position has passed the order of confiscation dated 28.8.2009, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 4 The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies opposed the said submission and stated that as against the order of the said seizure and confiscation, the petitioners have a right of appeal and without exhausting the same, they approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 5 In the normal circumstances, this Court could not have entertained this writ petition, but having considered the said definition defined under Clause-2 (iv), this Court is of the view that the very seizure itself is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Control Order permits the farmers, agriculturists and ryots to store food grains produced by them from out of their personal cultivation. Here, from a perusal of the panchanama, the stock that was found is 20 quintals of rice from both the petitioners. From the above provision of law, it is clear that a farmer can produce any amount of quantity through his personal cultivation and at the same time to bring an individual within the meaning of dealer, he must be in possession of more than 20 quintals. When, once it is the contention of the petitioners that they have purchased 10 quintals of rice each and have not contravened any of the clauses of the control order and they produced the bills establishing the fact that they purchased the said rice i.e., 10 quintals of rice each, the authorities ought not have seized the same. That apart, the seized quantity is only 20 quintals, but, according to the said provision of law, the quantity, if exceeded 20 quintals, then only a person can be defined as a dealer. 6 In the light of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petitioners even for the sake of imagination, cannot be defined as ‘dealers’ to have any valid document as provided for under the Control Order and the said seizure as well as the confiscation order passed by the first respondent is wholly without jurisdiction. As this Court is giving a finding that the seizure made by the 3rd respondent and the confiscation order passed by the first respondent is without jurisdiction, the question of approaching the appellate authority for redressal does not arise. 7 In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed at the stage of admission and the entire proceedings in G3/39/2009 dated 28.08.2009 passed by the first respondent confiscating the 100% of the seized stock in favour of the Government are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. --------------------- kvsn 16.09.2009