HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.11892 of 2006 ORDER :​ Thi​s Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders of the 2nd Respondent viz., Joint Collector, Medak District passed in C.S.A.No.45 of 2002, dated 23-08-2002 confiscating 60% of the stock seized from the petitioners and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2004, dated 08-05-2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak, as illegal. The 1st petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Dhanalaxmi Modern Rice Mill, Khagazmaddur Village, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. He was running the mill under a valid licence obtained under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982 and the said licence was valid up to 31-03- 2000. It appears that even after the expiry of the said licence, the petitioner continued to transact business and in the process, he contributed to the levy of rice prescribed by the authorities. On 14-06- 2001, the District Supply Officer, Sanga Reddy along with his staff inspected the mill premises and found 25 quintals of rice, 156 quintals of broken rice and 133 quintals of paddy. On verification, it was noticed that the petitioner had no licence to run the business and consequently observed that the stock held in the mill was found to be contrary to the clause 3(i) of APSCD (L&D) Order, 1982 and clause 3(i) of A.P. Prevention of Hoarding of Food grains Order, 1973. The Inspecting Officer also observed that the petitioner conducted business during 2000-2001 without licence and in fact delivered 1446 quintals of rice to the FCI as levy from 01-10-2000 to 31-03-2001. Based on the said inspection, the 1st respondent herein initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for confiscation of the seized stock. The 1st Respondent, after due consideration, held that the licence obtained by the petitioner expired on 31-03-2000 and the petitioner did not apply for renewal for the period beyond 31-03-2000. It was also held that the petitioner applied for fresh licence on 28-05-2001, but without waiting for the statutory period of one month, he commenced business contravening the provisions of the aforesaid control orders. The 1st Respondent therefore ordered confiscation of 60% of the seized stock under Section 6-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak. The appellate Court on a consideration of the material placed before it, confirmed the orders of the 1st Respondent and dismissed the appeal by orders dated 08-05-2006. That is how the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners did not indulge in any clandestine business; that they were under bona fide impression that the licence was still valid and renewed beyond 31- 03-2000; that in fact the petitioners contributed to the levy and that in the absence of the allegation that the petitioners indulged in clandestine business, action would not lie, therefore, the impugned orders confiscating the stock are unsustainable. The learned Government Pleader, however, contends that the petitioners were found with the stocks beyond the permissible limits, thereby contravened the Control Orders and the impugned orders do not warrant interference. Admittedly, the licence of the petitioners expired on 31-03-2000. The petitioners filed application seeking a fresh licence only on 28-05- 2001. The transactions undertaken by the petitioner prior to 28-05-2001 is not material for the present case. The fact remains that the petitioners were found to possess essential commodities on the date of inspection i.e., 14-06-2001. Under Clause 3 (1) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealer’s (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982, no person shall carry on business as a dealer or a commission agent dealing in paddy except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority. Under Clause 2 thereof, any person who stores in quantity of 5 (five) quintals or more of sugar, 20 (twenty) quintals or more of any one of the food grains or 50 (fifty) quintals or more of all food grains taken together, more than 10 (ten) quintals of anyone or more of pulses put together, more than 5 (five) quintals of anyone or more of edible oils including hydrogenated vegetable oil or more than 30 (thirty) quintals of anyone or more of oil seeds including ground nut in shell put together at any one time, shall unless the contrary is proved be deemed to be carrying on business as a dealer, under this order. In the instant case, the petitioners were found to have stored 314 quintals of stock including rice, broken rice and paddy. Therefore, whether the petitioners actually carried on the business or not, they are deemed to have carried on the business. There is no material to show that petitioners have rebutted that they had not conducted any business by filing any relevant material. The contention of the counsel that he was bona fide conducting the business and in the absence of conducting clandestine business, no action would lie, cannot be countenanced. As noted above, the petitioners instead of getting the existing licence renewed, made a fresh application for fresh licence on 28-05- 2001. Under the proviso to clause 4 (4) of the Control Order, 1982, where an application for issue of fresh licence has been received by the licensing authority and if the application is not rejected or returned for valid reasons, within a month, the applicant can thereafter commence business and continue till such time as his application for grant of licence is rejected. It is therefore evident that in the case of an application for fresh licence, it is obligatory on the part of the applicant not to commence any business at least for a period of one month till such application is rejected. In the instant case, as the application was filed on 28-05-2001, the petitioner should have waited at least till 27-06- 2001. The petitioners therefore were rightly found to have transgressed the provisions of Control Order, 1982 and they had stored the commodities as above, in fact violated the A.P. Prevention of Hoarding of Food grains Order, 1973. For the foregoing reasons, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents ordering confiscation of 60% of the seized stock. There are no merits in the Writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 13th December, 2010. skmr HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.11892 of 2006 Date : 13-12-2010 Between : B.Ramulu and another .. Petitioners And District Supply Officer, Medak at Sangareddy and another​ .. Respondents