KARNATHAM MALLIKARJUNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed 'to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in passing orders dated 12.01.2021, contrary to the proviso to sub-section (1)(c) of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955'), as illegal and arbitrary'.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the mini lorry bearing No.AP 27 TF 6300 and doing transport business; on 18.11.2020 the said lorry was intercepted on the allegation that the lorry is carrying PDS rice; Cr.No.171 of 2020 was registered and 6-A proceedings under E.C. Act, 1955 were initiated; the driver of the petitioner do not have knowledge about the nature of the rice; subject vehicle was handed over to the 4th respondent for safe custody; petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent seeking release of the subject vehicle and the 2 nd respondent passed an order dated 12.01.2021 directing the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from any nationalized bank pending finalization of the 6-A proceedings for interim release of the vehicle; in the said order, it is stated that the market value of the seized stock from the lorry in the open market is Rs.88,000/- and the value of the subject vehicle as Rs.5,00,000/- but the 2nd respondent has sought bank guarantee for Rs.8,00,000/- for release of the vehicle.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the second proviso to sub-section (1)(c) of Section 6-A of the Act, 1955, the value of the stock has to be taken into account and not the value of the vehicle for interim release of the vehicle. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in ' G.Subbarama Naidu vs. the Joint Collector, Chittoor , 1986 AIR(AP) 82' wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that the vehicle should be released if the owner is prepared to furnish security equivalent to the value of the seized essential commodity.