IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16246 of 2009 Between: 1 Kothakonda Raju S/o Dharmaiah Ganeshnagar Karimnagar District 2 Ch Ravi S/o Komuraiah Ganeshnagar Karimnagar District 3 K.Bhaskar S/o. Rajamallu AP 15Y 7116 Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector(CS) Karimnagar District 2 The Tahsildar Karimnagar(M) Karimnagar Proper and District 3 The Assistant Supply Officer Incharge Assistant Grains Purchasing Officer Karimnagar .....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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction declaring the seizure of the Rice 20 quintals BPT variety of the petitioners No 1 and 2 each 10 quintals and the Auto Vehicle bearing No AP 15Y 7116 of the petitioner No 3 through a panchanama by the respondent No 3 No 29-7-2009 even through the petitioners have not contravened any of the clauses of the control order and even though a petition has been filed by the petitioners before the respondent No 1 1-8-2009 requesting to the release the seized rice of 10 Quintals BPT varity of the petitioners 1 and 2 each 10 quintals and Auto bearing NO AP 15Y 7116 and not passing any orders for releasing of the same as arbitrary illegal null and void and violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14,19,and 21 of the constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to release the seized stock rice of 20 quintals BPT Varity of petitioners No 1 &2 each 10 Quintals and Auto bearing No AP 15Y 7116 in favour of the petitioner No 3 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure of the Rice 20 quintals BPT variety of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 each 10 quintals and the Auto bearing No.AP 15 Y 7116 of the petitioner No.3 through a panchanama by the respondent No.3 on 29.07.2009 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to release the seized stock rice of 20 quintals BPT variety of petitioners No.1 and 2 each 10 quintals and Auto bearing No.AP 15 Y 7116 in favour of petitioner No.3. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioners purchased 10 quintals of BPT rice each from M/s.Laxmi Traders, Huzurabad on 29.07.2009 and they were carrying the same in auto bearing No.AP15 Y 7116 belonging to the 3rd petitioner. The 3rd respondent inspected the said vehicle belonging to the 3rd petitioner and seized the said 20 quintals of rice on the ground that the petitioners do not have valid licence to carry on the said 20 quintals of rice and according to him the same is in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Commodities Dealers’ (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘Control Order’). The petitioners approached the 1st respondent i.e., the Joint Collector at Karimnagar and requested him to release the said stocks and also the auto stating that they do not come within the purview of the definition of dealer and as such they need not have any licence to carry on the said quantity of 20 quintals of rice. However, as the Joint Collector has not initiated any action, they approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.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. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the said submission and stated that as against the order of the said seizure, the petitioner has a right of appeal and without exhausting the same, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 6. 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 is found is 20 quintals of BPT rice. 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 petitioner that they do not require any valid licence and they produced the bills establishing the fact that they purchased the said rice i.e., 20 quintals of rice, 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. 7. 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 a valid licence as provided for under the Control Order and the said seizure is wholly without jurisdiction. As this Court is giving a finding that the seizure made by the 3rd respondent is without jurisdiction, the question of approaching the appellate authority for redressal does not arise. 8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed at the stage of admission and the respondents are hereby directed to release the seized stocks of 20 quintals of BPT rice belongs to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with the auto bearing No. AP 15 Y 7116 to petitioner No.3. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J August 10, 2009 KSH