Telangana High Court
Gugulothu Manjula vs The State Of Telangana on 7 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
Writ Appeal Nos.344 and 355 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned
counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N.S.Arjun
Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies
appearing for the respondents.
2. 440 quintals in 880 bags of rice were seized under
cover of Panchanama dated 17.04.2022, which was the
subject matter of confiscation proceedings under Section
6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as, ‘the 1955 Act’). That is the subject matter of
W.P.No.24869 of 2023 from which W.A.No.355 of 2024
arises.
3. Similarly, 450 quintals in 900 bags of rice together
with Lorry and Trolleys were seized under cover of
Panchanama dated 16.04.2022, which is the subject
matter of W.P.No.24948 of 2023 from which W.A.No.344 of
2
2024 arises. Similar confiscation proceedings under
Section 6-A of the 1955 Act were initiated by the Collector
(Civil Supplies), Rajanna-Siricilla District.
4. Since the commodity was perishable in nature, the
same was sold in public auction under Section 6-A(2)(ii) of
the 1955 Act and the sale proceeds of Rs.7,04,000/- were
deposited in the Government account by Challan dated
06.09.2022. However, Section 6-A proceedings were
pending, when the writ petitions were filed after a delay of
about one year of the seizure.
5. Similarly, in the connected writ petition i.e.
W.P.No.24948 of 2023, the seized rice was sold and the
sale proceeds of Rs.7,20,000/- were deposited on
06.09.2022 with the Government account. Proceedings
under Section 6-A of the 1955 Act were pending in the said
case also.
6. The writ petitions question the seizure of these
commodities as illegal, improper and without any authority
of law.
3
7. Learned writ court disposed of the writ petitions filed
by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the writ
petitioners’) directing the respondent-Collector (Civil
Supplies), Rajanna-Siricilla District, to conclude Section 6-
A proceedings within four weeks and the writ petitioners
were given liberty to raise all grounds including that rice is
not an essential commodity under the 1955 Act and
Control Orders made thereunder. Respondent No.2 was
also directed to frame an issue on this point and take a
decision taking into account the judgment rendered in the
case of Maimuna Begum v. State of Telangana
represented by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad 1. Writ
petitioners being aggrieved have preferred these two
appeals.
8. The main ground of challenge on behalf of the writ
petitioners is that in view of the amendment introducing
Section 2-A with effect from 12.02.2007 read with the
Schedule to the 1955 Act, rice and paddy not being
1
2016 (5) ALT 280 (DB)
4
specified as an ‘essential commodity’, the seizure was
illegal and without jurisdiction.
9. Learned writ court therefore erred in directing
conclusion of Section 6-A proceedings instead of quashing
the seizure itself.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State
has brought to our notice the judgment rendered by the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of
Elluru Chandra Obul Reddy v. Joint Collector, Kadapa,
Kadapa District 2, wherein the very question whether rice
and paddy fell within the varieties prescribed in Schedules
I and II of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy)
Order, 1984 under the 1955 Act, was answered classifying
them as ‘essential commodities’. He has also referred to a
decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
Gugulothu Pandu v. The State of Telangana represented
by its Principal Secretary (W.A.No.451 of 2022 dated
21.07.2022).
2
2008 (6) ALD 411 (DB)
5
11. It is submitted that this Court has relied upon the
judgment rendered in Elluru Chandra Obul Reddy (supra)
and conclusively answered the question whether rice and
paddy fall within the definition of ‘essential commodities’. It
is submitted that the said decision was carried in appeal to
the Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide judgment dated
01.04.2024 passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.9790 of 2024
has dismissed the SLP in limine. The position in law is
therefore well settled that rice and paddy fall in the
category of ‘essential commodities’.
12. It is submitted that the learned writ Court therefore
directed confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the
1955 Act to be concluded with liberty to the writ petitioners
to raise all grounds before the respondent No.2 – Collector
(Civil Supplies), Rajanna-Siricilla District. Therefore, no
interference may be made.
13. It is submitted that since confiscation proceedings
have concluded after passing of the order by the writ court,
the writ petitioners have alternative remedy under Section
6-C of the 1955 Act to prefer appeals.
6
14. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant
material facts from the record. We have also gone through
the provisions of the 1955 Act and the Schedules referred
to by the learned counsel for the appellants and have also
perused the decisions rendered in Ellugu Chandra Obul
Reddy (supra) and Gugulothu Pandu (supra).
15. The plea raised by the writ petitioners that rice and
paddy do not fall within the definition of ‘essential
commodities’ has been answered conclusively by the
judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in the case of Ellugu Chandra Obul Reddy
(supra) where the meaning of the expression “foodstuff” has
been expatiated at paragraph 28. This decision has been
followed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Gugulothu Pandu (supra).
16. Therefore, the plea that rice and paddy are not
‘essential commodities’ is not tenable in the eye of law.
During the pendency of confiscation proceedings the seized
rice was sold in public auction under section 6-A(2)(ii) of
7
the 1955 Act, as they were perishable commodities, and
the sale proceeds were deposited, but the proceedings were
still pending. The learned writ court therefore rightly
directed respondent No.2 to conclude the proceedings
within a time frame. Now that proceedings are concluded,
it is up to the appellants to avail remedy of appeal under
Section 6-C of the 1955 Act, if they are aggrieved thereby.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground
to interfere with the impugned orders.
18. The instant appeals are accordingly disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
____________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 07.08.2025
GJ