IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3995 of 2003 Between: 1 M.Reddeppa S/o M.Subbanna, R/o Panchayati Street, B.Kothakota Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 C.Mastan Vali S/o Immam Saheb, R/o 8/88 Simham Street, B.Kothakota Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 M.Subbi Reddy S/o M.Venkatramana Reddy, R/o 13-169, Pokanti Street, B.Kothakota Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Station House Officer, Chittoor District. B.Kothakota Police Station, B.Kothakota Mandal, Chitoor District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue any writ or order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of certiorari and quash the proceedings of Respondent in Crime No.6/2003 (Ex.P1) as illegal, ultra vires, excess of authority, violative of principles of natural justice and devoid of merits. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.S.GOPALA KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners seek to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings dated 10.02.2003 in Crime No.6 of 2003 on the file of the respondent-Station House Officer, B.Kothakota, Police Station, B.Kothakota mandal, District Chittoor on the ground that even assuming that they were found transporting the rice meant for food for work programme, there was no restriction for movement of the paddy as well as rice under the Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘E.C.Act’) or any notification issued thereunder. Therefore, the seizure of rice meant for food for work programme under the provisions of the E.C.Act for taking penal action is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. A counter has been filed by the respondent stating that as the petitioners have been transporting 180 bags of rice, each weighing 50 kgs, meant for food for work programme and the seizure was effected by registering a case in Crime No.6 of 2003 under Section 7(1) of the E.C.Act. It is stated that this Court in SHEELA SRINIVAS v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARIMNAGAR AND ANOTHER[1] in similar facts and circumstances of the case held that there are no restrictions as to stocking and movement of the paddy and rice in the State and for diversion of rice meant for food for work programme, the relevant provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure alone will apply, but not the penal provisions under the E.C.Act. The said ratio decidendi laid down by this Court is not disputed. The rice meant for food for work programme is not liable for confiscation under the E.C.Act. When there is no restriction imposed on the rice meant for food for work programme, the registration of crime under the provisions of the E.C.Act is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of keeping it open to the respondent to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:23.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JCS} [1] 2002(3) L.S.335