IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13115 of 2008 Between: 1 M/s Archana Traders, Rep by its Prop. Mali Redy Venkata Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, R/o. Amangal Village, Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Md. Moinuddin, S/o. Tajuddin, R/o. Bas Kalyan, Karnataka State. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Asst. Supply Officer, Circle III, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy district, 2 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent seizing the stocks rice along with lorry bearing No.KA 39-4823 by conduction panchanama on 17-5- 2008 is null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13115 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners seek a declaration that the action of the first respondent in seizing the stocks of rice along with lorry bearing No. KA 39-4823 under a panchanama dated 17-05- 2008 is illegal and unsustainable. The first petitioner is a proprietary firm in the business of purchase and sale of commodities including rice. The second petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle. On 17-05-2008 at around 7-00 P.M., the Tahasildars of Saroornagar and Uppal mandals and their staff made a surprise inspection of the premises M/s Venkateshwara Enterprises Trading Rice Mill, Bandlaguda village, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the Rice mill’) and found a lorry bearing No. KA 39-4823 loaded with rice bags in the Rice mill premises. The lorry and the commodities therein were seized and the stock was handed over to the first respondent for safe custody on account of the lateness of hour and lack of infrastructure to unload the stocks from the seized lorry. On 18-05-2008 morning mediators were called to the Rice mill and in their presence a panchanama was recorded including the fact that in the Rice mill Godown 338 bags of paddy 70 kilograms each and 340 bags of rice 50 kilograms each (170 quintals) and 439 quintals of broken rice were found. The Clerk of the Rice mill had stated to the mediators that these stocks were seized under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and a case under Section 6-A of the Act was also registered. While the inspection of the commodities in the Rice mill was going on, the first petitioner is reported to have come to the premises and claimed that the petitioner firm is in the rice business and he was conducting business in the premises of the Rice mill. The panchanama drawn up on 18-05-2008 records that loading of the lorry bearing No. KA39-4823 legitimises an inference of transportation of the loaded rice without a valid permission, thereby contravening clauses 3,4, 7 (a), 12 and 16 of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short ‘Control Order, 1984’). On such inference, the lorry with 373 quintals of raw rice in 746 bags and 1622 empty Mayuri brand printed bags seized. The petitioners have filed representations on 19-05-2008 and 04-06-2008 respectively to the second respondent seeking release of the seized rice and the lorry. It is the grievance of the petitioners as alleged by the leaned counsel for the petitioners Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy that the second respondent has not yet initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act nor has considered the petitioners’ representations dated 19-05-2008 and 04-06-2008, for release of the seized commodities and lorry. Though the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are in the process of initiation as is indisputably apparent from the panchanama dated 18-05-2008 in view of the allegations therein of contravention of the provisions of the Control Order, 1984, Sri Swamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners would in this writ petition seek a determination that mere loading of the lorry with rice does not amount to contravention of the provisions of Control Order, 1984. Sri Swamy, the learned counsel relying on the provisions of Sections 2 (j) and 3 of the Control Order, 1984 contends that the mere circumstance of the lorry being loaded with rice in the premises of the Rice mill in which the petitioner also claims to be pursuing its business as a trader in rice, does not provide adequate factual basis for a reasonable suspicion of contravention of the Control Order, 1984. The Control Order, 1984 has been issued by the State in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act read with the Orders of the Central Government in G.S.R. 800 dated 09-06-1978 and G.S.R.No. 452 dated 25-10-1972. To the extent relevant and material for the purpose of this writ petition, Clause 7 (a) (2) enjoins that save as otherwise provided in Sub- clause (1) no miller or dealer shall transport rice for sale from the premises of the rice mill or the business premises of dealers or the godown declared in the licence, except in accordance with the Release Certificate referred to in Sub-clause (1). Sub- clause (1) of Clause 7 (a) enjoins that no miller/dealer shall sell or agree to sell or otherwise dispose of the rice recovered by milling, other than the quantity specified in Clause 3 or Clause 4 as the case may be, except in accordance with a Release Certificate issued by the Collector or any officer authorized by the Government in this behalf. It is clear from the contents of the panchanama that the loaded lorry was found in the premises of the Rice mill. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Swamy also does not dispute this position in oral argument. What is however contended is that the first petitioner firm is also pursuing business activities from the same premises belonging to the Rice mill. This is a potentially disputed question of fact and needs to be established in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. If the first petitioner fails to establish that his firm is legitimately and regularly carrying out business activities from the premises belonging to the Rice Mill, then this claim of the petitioner would be factually misconceived and liable to be rejected on merits. It might also possibly and adversely impact the entire defence of the petitioner. What is available on record in this writ petition is only the panchanama dated 18-05-2008 and the prima facie conclusions of the civil supplies officials as recorded and apparent therein that the loading of the rice in the lorry legitimizes the inference of transport in contravention of the provisions of Clause 7 of the Control Order, 1984. The proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to determine relevant facts even before a determination of such primary facts in proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, are inappropriate. This Court is not constituted ‘an advance ruling forum’ for proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and the facts of this case do not project an extraordinary prejudice to the petitioners warranting any such primary determination of facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The stridency of the petitioners’ contentions notwithstanding, this Court must and does decline the invitation of the petitioner to a determination of primary facts before the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act have been recorded. Suffice it to state that the facts recorded in the panchanama and the assertions of the civil supplies officials as apparent from the panchanama dated 18-05-2008 does not make out a case of absence of material facts to justify an ad hominem inference that a contravention of the provisions of the Act and of the Control Order, 1984 has occurred. Initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act cannot therefore be interdicted as though in a writ of Prohibition, since no patent lack of jurisdiction is either pleaded, urged or established. On the analysis above, this Court rejects the request of the petitioners to determine the issue whether the petitioners contravened the provisions of the Act and or the Control Order, 1984. The specific relief sought in the writ petition namely release of seized commodities and the lorry is rejected in these proceedings. Since the petitioners have already submitted applications to the second respondent on 19-05-2008 and 04- 06-2008 for their release, it is incumbent on the second respondent to consider the same and pass a reasoned order/orders. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to expeditiously consider the representations by the petitioners dated 19-05-2008 and 04-06- 2008 for release of the seized commodities and of the lorry bearing registration No. KA39-4823, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits of the case to be formally instituted under Section 6-A of the Act or the entitlement to the release of the seized commodities and the lorry. The competent authority determining the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act shall determine the facts, apply the law and exercise discretion on the merits of the record before it without in any manner being influenced by the observations herein. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 24-06-2008 Pvks/* Nb:- Furnish c.c. in four days. B/0 pvks