SUVEERA TRADERS RICE MILL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed praying for the issue of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 18-4-2002 as illegal, arbitrary, biased, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (L&D) Order, 1982; Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and also the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Control Order dated 15-2-2002, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, and to pass such other order or orders.

(2.) The Petitioners, who are eight in number, are either Millers and Dealers or Wholesale Dealers in rice. It is stated that all the Petitioners are holding valid licenses under Clause III of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (L&D) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to 'the Scheduled Commodities Order'). It is stated that the Revenue authorities inspected the business premises of the Petitioners in the month of November 2001 on suspicion that the Petitioners purchased rice meant for 'Food for Work' in Rayalaseema districts, but they did not find any evidence to show that they have purchased such rice. In spite of that, the authorities have booked cases against the Petitioners under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and charge sheeted them on the file of the District Collector, West Godavari district at Eluru. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Petitioners were allowed to participate in levy during Khariff season. The Petitioners were given permits by the District Supplies Officer and accordingly the Petitioners delivered levy to the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to 'the FCI'), which is the nodal agency for collection of the levy rice. It is further stated that the District Collector passed orders in Section 6-A proceedings on 15-4-2002 and ordered confiscation of the entire seized stock or its value to the Government. Thereafter by the impugned proceedings dated 18-4-2002, the Joint Collector, West Godavari directed the District Manager, FCI, Tadepalligudem not to accept the mill levy delivery of rice from the Petitioners along with some other dealers. According to the Petitioners, the said impugned proceedings refers that the said communication was issued by the Joint Collector to the District Manager, FCI informing that the Sec.6-A cases have been booked against the Petitioners under the Act for violation of the provisions of the Scheduled Commodities Order and Levy Order. All the cases booked against the Petitioners are under trial before the District Collector. Hence, it is directed not to accept the levy rise until further orders. According to the Petitioners, the impugned proceedings issued by the Joint Collector are without jurisdiction, as the Joint Collector is not competent to issue such proceedings, under the Levy Order. It is also contended that insofar as the 6-A proceedings are concerned, the Petitioners have filed appeals before the District Court and they are pending.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that though the 6-A proceedings were initiated in the month of November during the pendency of those proceedings the Petitioners were permitted to participate in the levy during the Khariff season and accepted the levy rice supplied. According to the learned counsel, the license issued by the authorities under the Scheduled Commodities Order is neither suspended nor cancelled. As long as such license is not cancelled, the authorities have no power for not accepting the levy rice as under the terms of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to 'the Levy Order'), unless the Petitioners supply fifty percent of the rice owned by them under Levy Order, the Dealers are not entitled to receive 'Release Certificate' for the other fifty percent of the rice and without such 'release certificate' the dealers are not entitled to move the stocks of rice. Therefore, the action of the Respondent authorities would tantamount to denying the Petitioners to carry on their trade itself. The learned counsel also contended that the Petitioners were given a communication by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer dated 16-3-2002 directing the Petitioners to supply 100 tonnes of rice under levy by 31-3-2002; failing which the names of the traders would be removed from the list of dealers meant for supply of levy rice and also action would be taken under the Levy order as well as the Scheduled Commodities Order. According to the Petitioners, in pursuance of the said communication, the Petitioners have purchased the paddy and milled the same and when they were about to deliver the rice, the impugned proceedings were issued without any notice to the Petitioners and therefore, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the Petitioners sought for quashing of the said impugned order. It is also stated that the Government of India issued orders dated 15-2-2002, as per which the restrictions contained under the Scheduled Commodities Order, 1982 were removed and therefore, even on that ground also the impugned action of the Respondents is illegal and unsustainable.