The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting the inaction on the part of the official respondents in not taking action against Private Company (respondent No.10) who is alleged to have made an effort to divert 43,500 kgs of PDS rice, meant for supply through Public Distribution System, for selling the same illegally in the open market.
Briefly stated, the material facts are that respondent No.10 owns and operates 3 godowns, which are also used by the A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited/respondent No.3 to store its PDS rice. It is stated that, on 29.03.2021, the staff of the Warehouse informed the officials of the Central Warehousing Corporation/respondent No.4 (CWC) that the stock position of the PDS rice of respondent No.3 was nil and the said respondent No.3 did not see the need for engaging the warehousing godowns to stock PDS rice any further. Upon receipt of the said information from the officers of the Warehousing, the CWC de-hired the said godown on 30.03.2021.
It is stated that, based upon some information, the officials of the Vigilance Wing of the Civil Supplies Department as also the respondent No.3 raided the said godown on 30.03.2021 in the presence of 5 Panchas wherein it was found that 43,500 Kgs of PDS rice was sought to be recycled for sale in the open market. The PDS rice was stated to be loaded in a lorry after transferring the same from jute gunny bags to plastic bags. It is stated that the lorry along with stocks were confiscated.
The case of the petitioner is that, although the stocks were seized, a case ought to have been registered under Section 6-A and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which was not registered. Further, it is stated that proceedings had to be initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, which was also not done.
Allegations are levelled in the petition that the official respondents are trying to hush up the entire matter to protect the officials of the CWC as also the 10th respondent. It is in the background of the aforementioned facts that a mandamus was sought against the officials of the CWC as also the 10th respondent to take action in accordance with law.
The Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District/respondent No.5 herein in his counter affidavit has taken a stand that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is without any legal basis. It is stated that immediately after the rice was confiscated on 30.03.2021, a case under Section 6-A of the Act, 1955, came to be filed by the Assistant Supply Officer, Nellore Urban, on 31.03.2021, against the Managing Staff of the respondent No.10 as also the owner-cum-driver and not only that, it is stated that, a detailed order came to be passed on 17.08.2021 by the Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District, after hearing all the concerned. It is stated that in its order, dated 17.08.2021, it has been found that no offence was made out under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the respondents and therefore there was no ground or material to exercise the powers under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that the moment Section 6-A proceedings of the Act culminate in an order of discharge, of the alleged accused persons, there would be no basis for the State Government to proceed under the provisions of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, empowering the State to issue Orders of Detention as the requisite satisfaction which is otherwise required under the aforementioned Act would be missing.
It is further stated that the Order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, 1955, could also be challenged by an aggrieved party in terms of Section 6-C of the Act, 1955, and therefore a stand is taken that the present petition was totally misconceived and therefore in those circumstances it is stated that the PIL was misconceived and reserves dismissal.
On a perusal of the order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District, on 17.08.2021, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao noted that the said authority had recorded its satisfaction that what was confiscated on 30.03.2021 was only 0.29% of the stock stored in the godown of the respondent No.10, who was otherwise permitted a variation up to 0.35% up to 6 months of storage and 0.50% & 0.75% beyond 6 months and up to 1 year respectively. Further the Court noted from the order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, on 17.08.2021, that there were as many as 5 charges which were framed .
According to the explanation rendered by the Manager of CWC, on 29.03.2021, the entire stocks for PDS were lifted by the PDS Stage-II Contractor from the respondent No.10 godowns as per release orders issued by the Divisional Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limitedof Nellore District and thereafter the stock position was shown as nil as on 29.03.2021. The explanation further rendered was that thereafter the 2 godowns bearing Nos.2 & 3 were de-hired with immediate effect.
The stand of the Assistant Manager of respondent No.10 , was that she has been working as such manager for the last 4 years without blemish and that godowns bearing Nos.2 & 3 were taken by the CWC to store certain stocks of PDS rice. The explanation that was rendered was that marginal variation stocks were in the process of being cleared from godown Nos.2 & 3 with a view to shift the same to godown No.1 for which the lorry had been engaged which would be followed by an information to the Government in that regard. Shifting to godown No.1 is stated to have been for purposes of safeguarding the same as also to clear godown Nos.2 and 3 to be handed over to CWC for utilization of those two godowns for its requirement. The stocks in question admittedly were within the godown premises and had not been moved out and were only meant for being moved to godown No.1 in the same premises.
Based upon the explanations so rendered, the Collector and District Magistrate, in its order dated 17.08.2021, the Court is satisfied that no offence was made out inasmuch as the entire stock as on 29.03.2021 was released for distribution and that steps had been initiated for cleaning of the warehouses and godowns wherein the said stocks were stored and the stocks which were confiscated were in fact meant to be transferred to another godown in the same premises and were within the permissible 0.35%.
The apprehension expressed in the petition that despite confiscation of the PDS rice by the official respondents, no action was being taken among others against respondent Nos.3 and 10 is therefore belied in view of the final orders dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District, which order was further liable to be challenged by an aggrieved party in terms of Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, observed by the High Court.