IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23080 of 2010 Between: Bharat Food Produces Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... Petitioner AND District Collector, Nizamabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Ravi Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23080 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside judgment dated 12.08.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, confirming order dated 27.08.2009 of respondent No.1. The facts lie in narrow compass. The petitioner is a rice mill. The civil supplies department inspected the mill on 01.07.2009, wherein they have found alleged variations of 3,329-60 quintals of paddy and 2-90 quintals of broken rice. In the panchanama, it is shown at item No.8 that as per the stock register, 34,852-40 quintals of paddy should be available as against which there was physical stock of 38,182 quintals. To the show cause notice issued under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation, wherein he has taken the stand that 3000 quintals of paddy was in milling process and if that quantity is considered, there will not be any variation. In his order, respondent No.1 has dealt with this plea of the petitioner as under: “As per Counsel.18(2)(c) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage & Regulation) Order, 2008 in respect of rice millers 6% variation between book balance and ground balance shall be allowed. The respondent is hoarding stocks of paddy, rice and broken rice more than the permissible limit. The respondent contended that a quantity of 3000.00 quintals was given for milling and that the inspecting officers have failed to take the matter into consideration. The respondent also contended that the inspecting officers have failed to consider the resultant rice of 369.15 quintals and broken rice of 5.35 quintals against the 3000.00 quintals of paddy given for milling which is under process. On verification of panchanama, it is observed that the respondent has signed interest he panchanama admitting the variation. Thus, the explanation submitted by the respondent is not convincing. Hence, the respondent is liable for punishment for contravention and violation of the above said provisions of control order.” The learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order of respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that neither respondent No.1 nor the Sessions Court have not properly dealt with the plea raised by the petitioner and got swayed away by the alleged admission of variations in the panchanama by the petitioner’s management. He further submitted that if the evidence such as the stock register was taken into consideration, they would have been satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner. I find force in this submission of the learned counsel. From the above-reproduced paragraph of respondent No.1’s order, it is evident that he has solely based his conclusion on the alleged admission of variation by the petitioner. However, on a careful perusal of the panchanama, it is quite evident that there are corrections in the statement that the management of the petitioner has accepted the variation. It is quite visible to the necked eye that initially it was written that the management has refused to admit the variation and therefore the stock was handed over to the Deputy Tahsildar, Kamareddy. The letters in Telugu relating to refusal are struck off and it was later written as if the management of the petitioner has admitted to the variation. Quite interestingly, respondent No.1, who filed counter affidavit in this Writ Petition, in para 13 stated as under: “It is submitted that 38182.00 quintals of paddy found is the ground balance excluding 3000 quintals of paddy under process milling. Thus, there is a clear variation of (+)3329.60 quintals of paddy. The respondent No.1 has minutely examined and rightly passed the orders. The Sessions Judge, Nizamabad has justified and confirmed the orders passed by the respondent No.1 dated 27.08.2009.” From his counter affidavit, it is clear that respondent No.1 has (unwittingly or otherwise) admitted that 3000 quintals of paddy was under milling process. In the light of this fact, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s case requires reconsideration by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, is set aside and Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2009 is remitted back to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, for disposing of the same afresh, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP No.29451 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.03.2011 ES