Mittapalli Satyanarayana vs State Of Telangana Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

Heard Mr. V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents.

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the notice in MC.No.108/2016 dated 13.6.2016 issuing show cause notice under Section 6A of E.C. Act, is illegal, improper without any power or authority under law."

This Writ Petition is filed challenging show cause notice issued under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (for short 'the Act') primarily on the ground that as per the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, rice is not an essential commodity and therefore, proceedings initiated under Section 6A of the Act are not maintainable.

Two aspects are to be considered in this case. Firstly, it is not in dispute that Joint Collector is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 6A of the Act on the allegation of illegal transportation of rice meant for Public Distribution System and to take further action as warranted by law. If petitioner contends that rice is not an essential commodity, it is always open to him to raise that plea before that Authority. He may have grievance only if the Authority does not appreciate his stand, compels him and takes penal consequences against him.

Secondly, in Writ Petition No.23826 of 2009 and batch, this issue was considered by this Court and rendered common order on 30.04.2021 and this Court rejected the contention that above said Control Order is not applicable and upheld the decision of the authorities in taking action under Section 6A of the Act.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader also points out that above said Control Order is superseded by 2016 Control Order and the Control Order clearly stipulates that rice is an essential commodity. Section 7(e) introduced therein prohibits purchase of rice from the cardholders, who are entitled to draw rice under the provisions of Public Distribution System, and therefore, proceedings can be initiated. However, the Court is not expressing any opinion on this contention of learned Government Pleader as this particular Control Order was not in force when action was initiated against petitioner.

In view of the fact that decision is already rendered by this Court on the issue and since what is under challenge is only a show cause notice, this Court is not inclined to grant relief to petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that while admitting this Writ Petition, this Court granted interim protection with reference to the release of the vehicle. Possession of same shall not be disturbed as of now until the proceedings are concluded in pursuance of notice dated 13.06.2016 and an adverse decision is taken against petitioner. Petitioner is granted four (4) weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to respond to notice dated 13.06.2016. It is open to petitioner to raise all pleas as available in law including the factum of delay of five (5) years. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.