IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16430 of 2009 Between: Chikoti Venkateshwerlu and two others. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Joint Collector(CS) Karimnagar District and three others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16430 of 2009 ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure of the Rice i.e. 20 quintals of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, each 10 quintals, and the Auto bearing No.AP 15 Y 4737 of the petitioner No.3 through a panchanama by the respondent No.3 on 31.07.2009 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to release the seized stock rice of 20 quintals of rice and Auto bearing No.AP 15 Y 7116. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioners 1 and 2 purchased 10 quintals of rice, each, from M/s.Thejasvi Enterprises, Huzurabad, on 31.07.2009 and they were carrying the same in auto bearing No.AP15 Y 4737 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 document or bill to carry on the said 20 quintals of rice and according to him the same is in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled 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 have not contravened any of the clauses of the control order 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 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. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies opposed the said submission and stated that as against the order of the said seizure, the petitioners have a right of appeal and without exhausting the same, they approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 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 was found is 20 quintals of 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 petitioners that they 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., 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 any valid document 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 stock of 20 quintals of rice i.e. 10 quintals of rice of each of the petitioners 1 and 2, along with the auto bearing No. AP 15 Y 4737 belonging to petitioner No.3. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J August 11, 2009 kvr