TOLUSURI GURAVAIAH Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four petitions are disposed of by a common order in view of the commonality of the facts and law involved in these cases. It is stated by the petitioners that they are all agriculturists having lands in their respective villages. They are raising crops and selling the agricultural produce and thereby eking out their livelihood. During the year 2008, they raised red gram crop and realized good yield of red gram. Since the market at that time was not encouraging, they stored their agricultural produce in the godown of Central Ware Housing Corporation (CWC) at Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal with a view to dispose of the same when the market conditions improve. The particulars of the agricultural produce deposited by them was entered in the registers of the CWC authorities.

(2.) WHILE so, the 2nd respondent along with his officers inspected the godown on 28 -07 -2008 at 6 PM and seized the red gram stock stored in the godown. The 2nd respondent without conducting any enquiry and without verification of records under panchanama booked cases under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( for short " the Act"). Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition before the 1st respondent along with documentary evidence showing the extents of land owned by them and pattadar passbooks in respect of the said lands and requested to release the seized stock of red gram. Subsequently, they also filed a petition on 18 -08 -2008 to summon the Bank Manager to give evidence in support of their contention that they are agriculturists. The 1st respondent heard the arguments of Counsel for the petitioners on 04 -02 -2009 but without properly appreciating the facts of the case passed an order on 29 -05 -2009 ordering confiscation of the seized stock. Challenging the said order of the 1st respondent, the petitioners filed appeals in Crl.A.Nos.66, 67, 68 and 69 of 2009 in the Court of Sessions Judge at Ongole. The learned Sessions Judge, on an erroneous view of law and facts dismissed the appeals by order dated 10 -08 -2009 confirming the order of 1st respondent. These writ petitions were filed challenging the orders of learned Sessions Judge confirming the orders of 1st respondent.

(3.) THE only point raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the Petitioners are not businessmen and a solitary instance of storing foodgrains would not be a violation of Clause 3 (2) & (3) of A.P.Pulses (LS &R) Order, 2007 and the said point is no longer res integra as the issue was covered by ratio laid down in the decisions of Manipur Administration Vs.M.Nila Chandra Singh1 and M/s.Satyanarayan Balkishan Proprietor, Satyanarayana (Deceased by L.R Balkrishnan, Zaheerabad, Medak District Vs.The State of Andhra Pradesh by the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supllies, Zaheerabad, Medak District 2.