HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3379 of 2010 Dated: 17.09.2010 Between: Devarapally Ram Reddy & others. …..Petitioners And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Nalgonda & others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3379 of 2010 ORDER : The 17 writ petitioners, who claim to be agriculturists and small farmers, hailing from various villages in Kodad Mandal of Nalgonda District, filed this writ petition, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the seizure of their paddy on 26.06.2009 by the respondents, as illegal, and also questioned the orders of confiscation, dated 7th August 2009 and 7th December 2009, passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector. The Civil Supplies Task Force team members of Suryapet division have inspected the A.P.MARKFED godowns situated at Ramireddygudem in Kodad on 26.06.2009, which were leased out to one Mr.N.Ranga and seized the available stocks of 10,553.90 quintals of BPT paddy, 6,175.40 quintals of JGL paddy and 18,725.70 quintals of 1010 variety paddy, on the ground that the said stocks were stored in 5 godowns in contravention of the provisions under A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Supplies and Regulation) Order, 2008. The petitioners herein, who claim to be farmers, are claiming a portion of the paddy seized from the MARKFED godowns, stating that they have produced the paddy of BPT and 1010 varieties in their agricultural lands and stored in the MARKFED godowns and obtained bank loans by mortgaging the said stocks, but the said stocks were illegally seized. It is their case that they did not sell their agricultural produce as the prices were low, and they stored the paddy in order to sell the same whenever it fetches best price. After seizure of paddy, the same was reported to the 1st respondent. During the pendency of proceedings, all the 17 petitioners have filed individual claim petitions before the 1st respondent, claiming 1207 quintals of BPT paddy and 2475 quintals of 1010 variety, out of the total seized stocks. Inspite of the fact that the claim petitions filed by the petitioners are pending to the extent of above said stocks, at first instance, order dated 7th August 2009 was passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, in Case No.CS1/1162/2009, ordering confiscation of paddy only to the extent of 6175 quintals of JGL variety and 37.30 quintals of BPT variety. Out of the seized stocks, certain stocks also belonged to two rice millers, namely, M/s.Sri Venkatramana Parboiled Modern Rice Mill and M/s.Kanakadurga Enterprises, Kodad, who also claimed the paddy, on the ground that they have stored it in the MARKFED godowns, which are permitted places as per the FGL license, for want of place in their rice mills. One of the rice millers i.e. M/s.Sri Venkatramana parboiled modern rice mill, has earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.17625 of 2009 before this Court, questioning the order of confiscation, dated 7th August 2009, passed in Proceedings No.CS1/1162/2009. This Court, by an order, dated 7th October 2009, allowed the said writ petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner therein and to pass further orders. In the said order, a specific direction was also given by this Court that the inquiry be restricted to 37.30 quintals of BPT variety and 6175 quintals of JGL variety paddy. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.17625 of 2009, a further order, dated 7th December 2009, is passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, in Case No.CS1/1162/2009, releasing 6175 quintals of JGL variety and ordered for confiscation of 196.09 quintals of BPT variety and 1362.45 quintals of 1010 variety paddy, in favour of the Government. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that though they have claimed the BPT and 1010 varieties of paddy by filing claim petitions before the 1st respondent, without considering their claim petitions and without hearing them, the orders of confiscation are passed. It is submitted by Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, that though the 1st order was confined to confiscation to an extent of 6175 quintals of JGL paddy and 37.30 quintals of BPT variety, but in the order, dated 7th December 2009, the substantial quantity claimed by the petitioners/claimants is also ordered to be confiscated with regard to BPT and 1010 varieties of paddy. It is submitted by the learned counsel that although this Court directed to restrict the inquiry only to the extent of 6175 quintals of JGL variety and 37.30 quintals of BPT variety, the impugned order is passed, confiscating even the stocks claimed by the petitioners. It is submitted that although the claim petitions of the petitioners are pending, petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing and the impugned order is passed confiscating the substantial stocks of paddy claimed by the petitioners, in violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. While narrating the facts, which led to seizure and passing of further orders, it is stated that in view of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.17625 of 2009, the inquiry was restricted to the petitioner in the said writ petition and no directions were issued by this Court to consider the claims of the petitioners in this writ petition. While referring to the representation of the petitioners, dated 23.11.2009, it is stated that after filing of individual claim petitions by the petitioners, as no reports were received from the Tahsildars concerned regarding the quantities of paddy claimed by the petitioners, their claims were not considered. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that though there were claim petitions filed by the petitioners, basing on the same, reports were called for from the Tahsildars concerned, and as the Tahsildars did not confirm the quantities claimed by the petitioners, the said stocks were ordered to be confiscated. In this case, it is to be noticed that the Task Force team members have inspected the godowns of the MARKFED and seized the available stocks in the said godowns. The stocks seized were claimed by the agriculturists of several villages surrounding Kodad town, stating that the paddy seized was their agricultural produce and also two rice millers have claimed the seized stock, stating that they have stored the paddy in the said godowns as they were permitted as per their license conditions, due to paucity of accommodation in their mills. It is the case of the petitioners that they are agriculturists and small farmers, and they have stored the paddy in the MARKFED godowns and they have also availed bank loans by pledging the stored paddy. It is their case that the commodity seized and claimed by them, is an agricultural produce from their own lands, and in that view of the matter, there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Control Order, so as to attract confiscation proceedings under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is not in dispute that the individual claim petitions filed by the petitioners, claiming a portion of the paddy of BPT and 1010 varieties, are pending. At first instance, an order was passed, confiscating 6175 quintals of JGL variety and 37.30 quintals of BPT variety, in view of the claim of the petitioners that their claims were confined only to BPT and 1010 varieties of paddy. Aggrieved by such order, in which, confiscation was confined only to BPT and 1010 varieties, a rice miller has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.17625 of 2009, and while allowing the said writ petition, this Court has specifically directed to confine the inquiry only to the extent of BPT and 1010 varieties, but inspite of the same, further orders were passed on 7th December 2009, confiscating 1362.45 quintals of 1010 variety and 196.09 quintals of BPT paddy. Although the claim petitions of petitioners are pending, as evident from the counter, their claims were not considered only on the ground that no directions were issued by this Court with regard to the petitioners in this writ petition, but, it is to be noticed that as the petitioners herein were not aggrieved by the 1st order of confiscation, dated 7th August 2009, there was no occasion for them to approach this Court. In any event, when individual claim petitions of these petitioners are pending consideration, no order should have been passed by the 1st respondent, without giving further opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. From a reading of the provision under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, it amply makes it clear that no order of confiscation can be passed unless the owner of such essential commodity is given a notice in writing, informing him of the grounds on which the commodity is proposed to be confiscated, is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing, and is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Inspite of the specific allegation of the petitioners that no opportunity of hearing was given to them and the orders of confiscation were passed in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, precisely, there is no answer in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. As stated in the counter affidavit, it appears that the claims of petitioners were not considered only on the ground that there were no directions from this Court in the earlier writ petition. As much as the paddy of 1010 and BPT varieties were not ordered to be confiscated, there was no occasion for the petitioners earlier, to question the order, dated 7th August 2009. Merely because their claims were not confirmed by the Tahsildars, by itself, is also no ground for not considering the claims of petitioners, by the 1st respondent-District Collector. The 1st respondent, who himself is a statutory authority empowered to pass an order under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, should have considered the claims of petitioners before passing the order of confiscation, by giving an opportunity of hearing to them. Although it is stated by the learned Government Pleader that there is a right of appeal against the impugned order, but, as it is stated that the order, dated 7th December 2009, is passed consequent to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.17625 of 2009, and further, as it is not in dispute that inspite of pendency of the claims made by the petitioners, they were not given an opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under Section 6-B (1) (a) (b) & (c) of the Essential Commodities Act, this Court is of the view that it is not a case to drive the petitioners, go in for appeal, by not considering their claims, merely on the ground that there was no direction from this Court and that their claims were not confirmed by the Tahsildars. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it is a fit case to set aside the order, dated 7th December 2009, to the extent of confiscating 1362.45 quintals of 1010 variety of paddy and 196.09 quintals of BPT variety, with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the claims of petitioners and pass an order after hearing them, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. It is also made clear that the inquiry shall be confined only to the paddy, which was ordered to be confiscated in 1010 and BPT varieties, and it is open for the 1st respondent to consider the claims of petitioners independently, based on the material to be produced by them in support of their claim that the paddy stored by them belonged to them and was produced from their agricultural lands. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th September 2010. ajr