PADIGAPATI SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed 'to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in passing orders dated 05.12.2020, 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 petitioners is that, the 1st petitioner is the owner of the Auto bearing No.AP 27 UA 0598 and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of the Auto bearing No.AP 05 TH 1451 and doing transport business; on 17.09.2020 the said autos were intercepted on the allegation that the autos are carrying PDS rice; police registered a case under E.C. Act, 1955; the drivers of the petitioners do not have knowledge about the nature of the rice; subject vehicles were handed over to the 4th respondent for safe custody; petitioners filed an application before the 2 nd respondent seeking release of the subject vehicle and the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 05.12.2020 directing the petitioners to produce bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each from any nationalized bank pending finalization of the 6-A proceedings for interim release of the vehicles; in the said order, it is stated that the market value of the seized stock from each of the autos in the open market is Rs.96,000/- but the 2nd respondent has sought bank guarantee for Rs.1,50,000/- for each auto for release of the vehicles.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 vehicles for interim release of the vehicles. 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.