M.HARINATH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing 272 bags of raw rice each weighing 50 kgs, belong to the 1st petitioner and the lorry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belong to the 2nd petitioner through proceedings dated 11.11.2013 as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure.

(2.) It is stated that the 1st petitioner is having agricultural lands at Vatambedu Village and his father is also an agriculturist. As the paddy yielded from the 1st petitioner's land was drenched and discoloured, no trader came forward to purchase the same due to which the petitioner converted the same into rice and realized 272 bags each weighing 50 kgs and with a view to sell the same at Nellore, he engaged 2nd petitioner's lorry bearing No.AP 05 X 3049. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner loaded the rice into lorry on 10.11.2013. While the said lorry along with the stock was proceeding to Nellore, it was stopped by the 3rd respondent near APL Factory on NH-5 and the said lorry along with the stock were seized on suspicion that the rice belongs to PDS rice and registered a case in Crime No.216/2013 against the driver. But the petitioner contends that the rice loaded in the lorry is not PDS rice. Aggrieved by the seizure, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure made by the 3rd respondent is without authority of law and without jurisdiction. As per clause 17 of AP Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 or as per clause 16 of AP State Public Distribution System (control) Order, 2008, (hereinafter known as Control Order) the power of search and seizure is conferred on any office of the police department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. As the 3rd respondent is in the rank of ASI, he has no power either to search or seize the schedule commodities and therefore, he has no authority of law or jurisdiction to seize the vehicle as well as the stocks.