Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
P.Venkata Subbaiah And 5 Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 10 July, 2025
APHC010308012011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 83/2011
Between:
1. P.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O. B.BALA VENKAT, R/O. PEDDA
KOTTALA , KURNOOL DISTRICT.
2. Y.THIMMAIAH, S/O. Y.RAMA SUBBAIAH, R/O. GURUKALLU,
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
3. N.N.LINGA REDDY, S/O. P.LINGA REDDY, R/O. MANDLAM
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
4. S.IKBAL, S/O. KASIM PEERA, R/O.NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
5. C.NAGARAJU, S/O. K.NARAYAN, R/O. THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE,
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
6. P.NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. P.PULLA REDDY, R/O.
KORATAMADDI VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT,.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. (Through District Collector (C.S.Kurnool
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
K V RAGHU VEER
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections
397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the
Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the judgment dated 24.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.107 of
2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the
order passed by the learned Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool,
in RC.DSO/CS1/EC.No/68/2009 dated 13.07.2009, was confirmed. The
learned Collector, Kurnool, passed the impugned order confiscated the
seized stock to the Government.
2. The case of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, is that he along with
the officials of the Vigilance and Enforcement has inspected the
premises of Tirumala Rural Farmer Ware House Peddakottala Nandyal
on 26.06.2009 inspected the premises of Tirumala Rural Farmer Ware
House, Nandyal, and seized the stock of 15634.00 quintals of paddy as
per the contravened provisions of Clause-2(K) and Clause-10(I) and
18(2)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities and Dealers
(Licensing and Regulation and Supplies) Order, 2008 (for brevity ‘the
Control Order’) read with G.O.Ms.No.49 Consumer Affairs Food and
Civil Supplies Department, dated 25.11.2008 and submitted a report
under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, (for short ‘the
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
E.C.Act.’) to the learned Collector for issuing necessary proceedings. It
was further contended by the Mandal Revenue Inspector that some of
the benami traders of surrounding areas of Nandyal hoarded huge
stocks of paddy at Ware House by purchasing the same from ryots. On
verification of the premises, they noticed that bags of paddy containing
75 KGs each in the above mentioned quantity were hoarded in the Ware
House.
3. The learned Collector issued orders under Section 6-A (2) of ‘the
E.C.Act.’ for interim disposal of the seized stock in public interest to
control raising prices as the seized stock is perishable in nature. It was
mentioned in the impugned proceedings that an opportunity was given to
the farmers to produce relevant documents before the enquiry officer by
name Surender, Project Director, DWMA, Kurnool. Out of 70
depositors/farmers, 58 had participated in the enquiry on 04.07.2009 at
the premises of godown and produced the records and other evidence
such as pattadar pass books and title deeds etc., to prove that
themselves as agriculturists of the hoarding stock. The learned
Collector, based on the details compiled in accordance with the
prescribed limit fixed @ 30 quintals per acre a quantity of 781.79
quintals as shown in Cloumn.No.14 had confiscated to the Government
by releasing a quantity of 12639.26 quintals to the above mentioned 57
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
farmers/depositors, who attended the enquiry, as per the details shown
in the annexure appended to the impugned order.
4. Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that neither an opportunity was given by the learned Collector
before passing the impugned orders, nor followed the procedure
contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ which mandates that
under the report submitted by the respondent, the learned District
Collector ought to have issued a notice calling for the objections from the
respective farmers and ought to have framed charges and conducted an
inquiry as contemplated under ‘the E.C Act‘. Therefore, non issuance of
statutory notice is hit by the principles of natural justice. It is further
argued that Sections 6-A and B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ mandate the learned
District Collector to conduct an inquiry himself, and he cannot delegate
that power to any subordinate authority. Even the subordinate authority
had not given sufficient time to conduct an inquiry, and only one day
time was given. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned order passed by
the learned District Collector which was confirmed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge are hit by the principles of natural justice and
they are liable to be interfered and set aside.
5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently argued that notices were issued by the Tahsildar requiring
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
the farmers to submit their objections for the report contemplated under
6-A of ‘the E.C Act.,’ and thus sufficient opportunity was given to the
farmers before confiscation order was passed. In the appeal, the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, having carefully considered the case
of the petitioners, confirmed the confiscation of the seized stock by the
learned Collector. Therefore, that order is not required to be interfered
with inasmuch as the principles of natural justice were complied with by
the learned District Collector. It is further argued that even the judgment
of the learned Principal Sessions Judge also clearly depict that the
procedure as contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ was
followed. It is further argued that as per Section 6-B(3) of ‘the E.C Act.,’
even if there is any irregularity or any defect in the notice contemplated
under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ order of confiscation of the Essential
Commodity shall not get invalidated. Therefore, it is urged to dismiss all
the revisions.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.107 of 2009
dated 24.08.2010 passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is correct, legal, and
proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025judgment, and there are any material irregularities?
And to what relief?”
8. For better appreciation and understanding of the case, it is
apposite to extract Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act.,’ as under:
“6-A. Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance
of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report
of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made
to the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in
which such essential commodity is seized and whether or
not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such
order, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do,
direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for
inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has
been a contravention of the order may order confiscation
of–
(a)the essential commodity so seized;
(b)any package, covering or receptacle in which such
essential commodity is found; and
(c)any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in
carrying such essential commodity:
Provided that without prejudice to any action which
may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no food
grains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made
under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if
the seized food grains or edible oilseeds have been
produced by him, be confiscated under this section:
Provided further that in the case of any animal,
vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of
goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal,
vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option
to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the
market price at the date of seizure of the essential
commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle,
vessel or other conveyance.
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on
inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section
(1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject
to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in
the public interest so to do, he may―
(i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any,
fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under
any other law for the time being in force; or
(ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold
by public auction:
Provided that in case of food grains, the Collector
may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair
prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at
the price fixed by the Central Government or by the State
Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such
food grains to the public.
(3) where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the
sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of
any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses
relating thereto, shall―
(a) where no order or confiscation is ultimately passed by
the Collector,
(b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1)
of section 6C so requires, or
(c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of
the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has
been made under this section, the person concerned is
acquitted”
9. A fair reading of Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act.,’ it can be understood
that upon of the receipt the information/report about the seizer of any
Essential Commodity, it is incumbent on the part of the learned District
Collector to direct the Essential Commodity be produced for inspection
before him and if it is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
orders, he may order for confiscation of the commodities seized subject
to the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act‘.
10. For better understanding of the case, Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’
is reproduced as follows:
“6-B. (1) No order confiscating any essential commodity,
package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or
other conveyance shall be made under section 6A unless the
owner of such essential commodity, package, covering,
receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or the
person from whom it is seized–
(a)is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on
which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity
package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or
other conveyance;
(b)is given an opportunity of making a presentation in writing
within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice
against the grounds of confiscation; and
(c)is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the
matter.
(2)Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no
order confiscating any animal, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance shall be made under section 6A if the owner of
the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance proves to the
satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying the
essential commodity without the knowledge or connivance of
the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge
of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and that
each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary
precautions against such use.
(3)No order confiscating any essential commodity package,
covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or
irregularity in the notice, given under clause (a) of sub-section
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
(l), if, in giving such notice, the provisions of that clause have
been substantially complied with.”
11. A careful reading of Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ it is crystal clear
that before passing any order for confiscation of the Essential
Commodity, it is mandatory on the part of the learned District Collector
to issue a show cause notice in writing informing him of the grounds on
which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodity under
Clause (a) of Section 6B of ‘the E.C Act;’ a reasonable opportunity of
making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may
be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation shall be
given under Clause (b); a reasonable opportunity of being heard within
such reasonable time shall be given under Clause (c) of the notice as
contemplated under Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act‘. As seen from the
impugned order, there were no such references about issuance of
notices as contemplated under Section 6-B ‘the E.C Act.,’ containing the
above mentioned requirements. The impugned order does reflect that
the learned District Collector had conducted an enquiry as contemplated
under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act‘. The impugned order does not contain
the charges under which the petitioners/ryots had allegedly violated the
control orders.
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
12. In this regard, it is opposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Panjab1 wherein it is
categorically held at para No.13 that an order passed without issuing a
show cause notice is revisable and to be interfered and set aside. Notice
under Section 6-B(1) of ‘the E.C Act.,’ must contain all details and the
grounds of proposed confiscation proceedings. Further, the High Court
of Patna in Mahabir Prasad Bajaj v. State of Bihar2 held that vague
notice vitiates entire proceedings and the provisions of Section 6-B(1) of
‘the E.C Act.,’ are mandatory. This judgment gives emphasis on the
point that the notice must contain all material facts or allegations.
13. In Jhabarmal Mukin v. State of Bihar3, a Division Bench of the
High Court of Patna held that the confiscation was invalid because the
requirements of section 6-B of ‘the E.C. Act.,’ was not mentioned in the
notice. It was further held that on plain reading, sub-section (3) is
applicable to cases where there has been a substantial compliance. This
shows that substantial compliance of the notice under section 6B of ‘the
E.C Act.,’ is a must. The question of defect or irregularity will come
subsequently. When the notice itself has not been substantially complied
with as required under section 6B (a) of ‘the E.C Act.,’ there is no
1
2008 (7) SCC 38
2
1990 SCC OnLine Pat 174
3
1984, P.L.J.R. 568
11
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
question that any defect or irregularity can be ignored under sub-section
(3) of section 6B of ‘the E.C Act‘.
14. In Md. Ayub Bismillah Rice and Oil Mills v. Collector West
Champaran4, it is held that if a notice is issued without giving any details
of violation of the Licensing Order, such type of notice shall not fulfill the
requirements of section 6B of ‘the E.C Act‘. It was pointed out that the
notice issued must set out in detail, the grounds on which it was
proposed to confiscate the essential commodities.
15. This Court, in P. Venkata Konda Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, in Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch, vide order dated
11.03.2025, in the above similar circumstances, allowed the Criminal
Revision Cases by setting aside the impugned order passed by the
learned Collector, on the ground that he did not comply with Section 6-B
of ‘the E.C. Act‘.
16. In the instant case, as can be seen from the impugned order the
learned District Collector had authorized a certain cadre of the officer
i.e., Surender, Project Director, DWMA, Kurnool, to conduct inquiry by
obtaining the information and submit report within only one day. Sections
6-A and 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ contemplate that the inquiry has to be
conducted by the learned District Collector himself. The learned
Collector cannot delegate the power of conducting the inquiry to his
4
1977 B.B.C.J. 151
12
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
subordinate authorities. The maximum „delegatus non potest delegare‟
has to be applied where a statute clearly and strictly directs the learned
District Collector to conduct himself an inquiry as contemplated under
Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ he cannot further delegate his powers to
any of his subordinates. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pramod K. Pankaj
v. State of Bihar5, at para No.16 held that the maxim ‘Delegatus non
potest delegare‟ is a well-known maxim which means in the absence of
any power a delegatee cannot sub-delegate its power to another person.
The impugned order do not reflect about issuance of notice as
contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ which is a repository of
the principles of natural justice. Any order that is passed against the
principles of natural justice is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
17. Though the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool in his judgment
referred namesake that the learned District Collector strictly followed the
procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ the record
reveals that no such notices were issued to the farmers by the learned
District Collector. Indeed, there was a reference that the Tahsildar on
04.07.2009 issued notices to the farmers, but those notices are not
appropriate and adequate notices as contemplated under Section 6-B of
‘the E.C Act.’
5
(2004) 3 SCC 723
13
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
18. Of course, the order of the learned District Collector does not
reflect that he had ordered approximately 10% of the seized stock to be
confiscated by the Government, but the statement appended to the
impugned proceedings disclosed that quantity to the confiscation to the
government is 10% from out of the quantity seized from the farmers. The
about 90% of the stock seized was directed to be given to the farmers.
When the learned District Collector found that the petitioners were the
genuine farmers who had produced the grains from their respective
fields what was the reason that prompted the learned District Collector is
unknown to impose 10% of the stock seized for confiscation to the
government. There was no justification to order even 10% of the
confiscation to the government since the statements recorded by the
officers concerned from the farmers revealed that they produced
commodities from their fields. To buttress, this they had also referred to
the pattadar passbooks and other documents relating to their cultivation.
19. Be that as it may, the impugned order suffers from severe material
irregularities which cannot be sustained. Therefore, the notice under
Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ which was the genesis for initiating the
confiscation proceedings, when appears to have been not at all given,
the confiscation proceedings themselves have become invalid for want
of substantial compliance. Ergo, the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool and consequently the
14
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
impugned order passed by the learned District Collector, Kurnool are
liable to be interfered and set aside.
20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside
the judgment in Crl.A.No.107 of 2009 dated 24.08.2010 on the file of the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, consequently the impugned
order in RC.DSO/CS1/EC.No/68/2009, dated 13.07.2009 passed by the
learned District Collector, Kurnool, is also set aside. It is needless to say
that the authorities shall to pay the value of the 10% seized stock to the
petitioners forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dated: 10.07.2025
RSI
15
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
218
THE HON’BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
RSI