RADHA MODERN RICE MILL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court issued Rule Nisi on 19. 6. 2006 and granted interim suspension.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order of the second respondent demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 56,000/- equivalent to the stock confiscated in the year 1993 vide proceedings dated 9. 6. 2005 as illegal, arbitrary and barred by limitation and consequently, to set aside the proceedings of the second respondent dated 9. 6. 2005.

(3.) IT is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that on 1. 1. 1987 the Special Deputy Thasildhar, Check post, morampally checked a lorry bearing no. CMA 449 and found that the lorry driver was transporting rice of 100 quintals of the petitioner-firm, that the driver on demand produced the permit dated 29. 12. 1986 issued by the Collector and found that on the reverse side, it was incompletely filled. It is further averred that the stocks and the lorry were released after obtaining cash security of Rs. 6,000/- and third party security of immovable property for Rs. 50,000/ -. It is also averred that in 6a proceedings initiated by the Joint Collector on the confiscated stocks, he imposed the fine equivalent to the value of the stock seized on the owner of the lorry by his order dated 4. 7. 1988. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and that the Commissioner, by his order dated 13. 12. 1993, confirmed the same. It is averred that on the directions of the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 17. 11. 2004, the Mandal Revenue officer issued a notice dated 9. 6. 2005 to the petitioner to remit an amount of rs. 56,000/-, the value of the stocks seized which was transported illegally. Under section 7a of the Essential Commodities act, the Central Government has power to recover certain amounts as arrears of land revenue where any person, liable to pay any amount in pursuance of any order under Section 3 or deposit any amount to the credit of any account or fund constituted by or in pursuance of any order made under that section fails to pay the same. It is further averred that under the A. P. Revenue Recovery Act and the Essential commodities Act, the limitation to recover the arrears had not been prescribed. Article 137 of the Limitation Act provided that any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division the period of limitation to be taken is three years and the time begins to run when the right accrues. It is also averred that the notice issued by the second respondent dated 9. 6. 2005 making a demand for payment of the confiscated stock in the year 1993 is barred by limitation. Thus a specific stand had been taken that such demand cannot be made and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.