THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.18420 OF 2009 Dated: 02.09.2009 Between: Nagalla Manohar & another Petitioners And The Joint Collector (CS) Karimnagar District, Karimnagar And two others. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.18420 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 The Petitioners approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the seizure of the Rice 10 quintals of BPT variety of the Petitioner No.1 and the Auto vehicle bearing No.AP 15 X 9871 of the Petitioner No.2 through a panchanama by the Respondent No.3 on 21.08.2009 even though the Petitioners have not contravened any of the clauses of the Control Order as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the Respondents to release the seized stocks rice of 10 quintals of BPT variety and Auto bearing No.AP 15 X 9871 in favour of the Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 respectively and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest.” 2 The brief facts are that on 21.08.2009 when the first Petitioner purchased 10 quintals of BPT variety rice for his family consumption and was taking the same in the auto bearing No.AP 15 X 9871 belonging to the second Petitioner, the third Respondent inspected the said vehicle and seized the same under the cover of panchanama dated 21.8.2009 alleging that the said stocks is being carried without any permit or proper bill and the same is in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers’ (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘Control Order’). Questioning the said seizure, the Petitioners 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 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 10 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., 10 quintals of rice, the authorities ought not have seized the same. That apart, the seized quantity is only 10 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. 6 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. 7 In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed at the stage of admission and the entire proceedings are hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to release the seized stock of 10 quintals of BPT variety and the auto bearing No.AP 15 X 9871 in favour of the Petitioners 1 and 2 respectively. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------- kvsn 02.09.2009