STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. VIJAYARAJU APPALARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment passed in A.S. No. 76 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants. The facts that led to this second appeal are as follows : The first respondent, herein, filed the suit O.S. No. 346 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Srikakulam, claiming a sum of Rs. 2.900 being the value of 11 bags of rice seized from him by the defendants together with interest, other expenses and also damages.

(2.) The plaintiff is a dealer in rice and is having a valid foodgrains licence. His place of business is at Palasa in Srikakulam District. He sold 11 bags of rice on 7/02/1978 to a dealer at Vizianagaram and the same was being transported from Palasa to Vizianagaram through M/s. Bharat Motor Parcel Service with necessary documents, viz., credit bill and way-bill. On the way, it appears, that the third defendant Commercial Tax Officer (Check Post) detained the stock and got unloaded it on the grounds that the same is not having a permit from the Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam and levy-free certificate issued by the District Supply Officer, Srikakulam. Even though it was pleaded on behalf of the dealer that there is no restriction on movement of rice from Srikakulam to Vizianagaram District and a permit from the Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam and levy-free certificate issued by the District Supply Officer, Srikakulam are not necessary, but, the third defendant did not heed the plea and preferred to detain the stock.

(3.) Thereupon, the plaintiff-dealer approached the District Supply Officer, Srikakulam and the District Supply Officer issued exhibit A-6, proceedings in R.C. No. 2549/78/S2/dated 20/02/1978 in which, he made it clear, that the stock of rice is a second sale and there was no restriction on movement and the certificates asked for are not necessary. Even then the third defendant did not release the stock and kept it with him. The stock being rice subsequently got spoiled. In those circumstances, the plaintiff filed suit for realisation of the price of rice of the stock seized with interest and other expenses.