Telangana High Court
Aitha Srikanth vs The State Of Telangana on 20 April, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION Nos.10944 & 10995 OF 2026
DATE OF ORDER : 20.04.2026
W.P.No.10944 of 2026
Between:
Aitha Srikanth, S/o. Aitha Krishna
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Flat No.102, Vasavi Rajamani Meadows,
Haripuri Colony, Road No.1, Saroornagar,
Ranga Reddy District - 500 102.
.. Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department,
secretariat, Hyderabad and three others
.. Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
Writ petition No.10944 of 2026 is filed with the
following prayer:
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the action of the Respondents in seizing and
continuing to retain the Petitioner’s stock of rice
admeasuring 187 quintals along with the lorry bearing
No.AP-16-TY-1688, pursuant to the Panchanama dated
23.12.2025 in FIR No.275 of 2025 on the file of Palakurthy
Police Station, Jangaon District, as illegal, arbitrary, without
2 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of
the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the
Respondents to forthwith release the said rice stock and the
vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, on such terms and
conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case, and pass such other order or
orders…”
Writ petition No.10995 of 2026 is filed with the
following prayer:
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the action of the Respondents in seizing and
continuing to retain the Petitioner’s stock of rice
admeasuring 187 quintals along with the lorry bearing
No.AP-28-TA-7432, under Panchanama dated 23.12.2025 in
connection with FIR No.274 of 2025 as illegal, arbitrary,
without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and
300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct
the Respondents to forthwith release the seized rice stock
and the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, on such terms
and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case, and pass such
other order or orders…”
2. Heard Mr. K.Vishnu Kanth, learned counsel for
petitioner, Mr. N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned Government
Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3,
and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent
No.4 in both the writ petitions.
3. The subject matter in both the writ petitions being
similar in nature, they are being heard together.
3 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
Facts in WP No. 10944 of 2026:
4. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 187 quintals of
commercial rice, seized by respondent No.4 under the
cover of panchanama dated 23.12.2025, FIR No. 275 of
2025 is registered for offences under Sections 318(4) r/w
3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 & 8 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (FIR is Ex.P1, page No.12
of writ papers). Complaint (page No.16 of writ papers), is
that a vehicle bearing registration No. AP 16 TY 1688 was
intercepted by the police of Palakurthy, near valmidi cross
roads carrying rice, intended for distribution to eligible
beneficiaries through public distribution system,
fraudulently and illegally procured from functionaries. 370
plastic bags (50 kgs each) of rice were being transported in
the vehicle (Lorry) from Madhira mandal (Khammam
District) to Nanded, Maharashtra. Complainant is the
Deputy Tahsildar, he conducted panchanama in presence
of witnesses, seized the vehicle and rice. Complainant
requested the Deputy Marketing and Logistics officer to
verify the nature of rice by collecting samples, rice
4 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
inspected was specified variety designated for PDS.
Complainant seized rice (worth Rs.8,41,500/-) along with
vehicle and requested the station house officer to take
necessary action as per law.
Facts in W.P.No.10995 of 2026:
5. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 187 quintals of
commercial rice, seized by respondent No.4 under the
cover of panchanama dated 23.12.2025, FIR No.274 of
2025 is registered for offences under Sections 318(4) r/w
3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 & 8 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (FIR is Ex.P1, page No.12
of writ papers). Complaint (page No.16 of writ papers), is
that a vehicle bearing registration No. AP 28 TA 7432 was
intercepted by the police of Palakurthy, near valmidi cross
roads carrying rice, intended for distribution to eligible
beneficiaries through public distribution system,
fraudulently and illegally procured from functionaries. 370
plastic bags (50 kgs each) of rice were being transported in
the vehicle (Lorry) from Madhira mandal (Khammam
District) to Nanded, Maharashtra. Complainant is the
5 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
Deputy Tahsildar, he conducted panchanama in presence
of witnesses, seized the vehicle and rice. Complainant
requested the Deputy Marketing and Logistics officer to
verify the nature of rice by collecting samples, rice
inspected was specified variety designated for PDS.
Complainant seized rice (worth Rs.8,41,500/-) along with
vehicle and requested the station house officer to take
necessary action as per law.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that rice
seized is not PDS rice. It is further submitted that seizure
is based on suspicion, without scientific verification or
laboratory analysis to establish that rice is PDS rice. That
no quality test, grain sample report nor conclusive material
is obtained to support the allegation. It is also submitted
that retention of the rice stock is arbitrary.
7. It is submitted that confiscation proceedings under
Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for
short ‘the Act, 1955’) have not been initiated nor the stock
seized is produced before the Court. It is further submitted
that rice being a perishable commodity and if stored
6 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
improperly would cause irreparable economic loss. It is
also submitted that physical custody of rice stock is not
necessary, does not serve any evidentiary purpose and
retention is unjustified. It is pointed out that petitioner is
ready and willing to furnish reasonable security or bond, if
required, to secure the production or value of the stock.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for
Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3
submitted that PDS rice meant for public distribution was
being illegally transported from Madhira Mandal,
Khammam, to Nanded, Maharashtra, by lorry. That Police
intercepted and found the rice being transported and
drivers had confessed that owners, Aitha Krishna and
Aitha Srikanth of Dharmapuri Colony, Saroornagar, had
instructed them to transport the rice to the destination. It
is further submitted that officially it was certified that rice
was specified variety designated for PDS. That a
panchanama was conducted and the complainant i.e.,
Deputy Tahsildar, seized rice bags along with lorry. It is
lastly submitted that petitioners in both the writ petitions
7 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
are guilty of offences registered in the FIR and proceedings
under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, are underway, hence,
no interference is necessitated.
9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and
considered the submissions.
10. Petitioners in both the writ petitions claim themselves
to be owners of 187 quintals of commercial rice. The said
rice was seized by respondent No.4 on 23.12.2025. On the
basis of a complaint by the Deputy Tahsildar, FIRs came to
be lodged bearing Nos.275 and 274 of 2025 for offences
under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections 7
and 8 of the Act, 1955, in P.S. Palakurthty.
11. From the material on record, it is observed that
drivers of both the lorries had confessed that upon
instructions of petitioners, rice was being transported from
Madhira to Nanded. Lorries were intercepted by the Police
at Valmidi Cross Roads, Palakurthty. Rice meant for
distribution to eligible beneficiaries through the Public
Distribution System was fraudulently and illegally
8 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
procured and was being transported. Samples of rice were
collected and forwarded to Deputy Marketing and Logistics
Officer, to verify the nature of rice. Officially it was certified
that rice was of the specified variety designated for PDS
and was within the parameters prescribed by Government
of India. A panchanama was conducted and the
complainant i.e., the Deputy Tahsildar, seized the rice bags
with lorries. Petitioners relied upon the bills of supply
dated 22.12.2025 in both the writ petitions (Ex.P2-Page
Nos.20 & 19 of writ papers), to support their claim. The
vehicle numbers on the bills of supply are AP 16 TY 1688
and AP 28 TA 7432.
12. In W.P.No.10944 of 2026, the Bill to party is Laxmi
Poultry Farms, Degloor, Nanded, and ship to party is
Laxmi Poultry Farms, Degloor, Nanded. The bill of supply
is issued by Srikanth Traders, Saroornagar, and the
authorized signatory is A.Srikanth.
13. In W.P.No.10995 of 2026, the Bill to party is Nandi
Poultry Farms, Khanapur, near Degloor, Nanded, and ship
to party is Nandi Poultry Farms, Khanapur, near Degloor,
9 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
Nanded. The bill of supply is issued by Sri Srinivasa
Manikanta Traders, Saroornagar, and the authorized
signatory is A.Krishna.
14. On the basis of these two supply bills, contention is
put forth that the rice is commercial rice, but not PDS rice.
Section 6A of the Act, 1955, is as follows:
“6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.― 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
foodgrains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made
under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if
the seized foodgrains 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
10 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle,
vessel or other conveyance.
Where 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 foodgrains, 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
foodgrains 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,
be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is
seized.”
15. On a perusal of Section 6A of the Act, 1955, it is
apparent that confiscation of essential commodities can be
done for violation of control orders. The commodities can
11 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
be seized for violation of restrictions imposed i.e., storage,
sale or movement.
16. It is apparent from the material on record that PDS
rice which was meant for eligible beneficiaries was being
transported from Madhira to Nanded. Vehicles were
intercepted, 187 quintals of rice was seized along with
vehicles and the rice was put to test. It was found that rice
was of the designated variety meant for PDS. Panchanama
was conducted.
17. It is averred that confiscation proceedings under
Section 6A of the Act, 1955, have not been initiated. Be
that as it may, the rice and the vehicle are seized. It may
take some time for conclusion of proceedings under 6A of
the Act, 1955, if already initiated.
18. Rice a commodity which is likely to get damaged,
cannot be held for long. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the opinion that relief be granted
for interim custody of the rice seized by the authorities.
The respondents are directed to release the stock of rice
12 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
seized, subject to the condition that petitioners furnish
immovable property as security in the State of Telangana
equal to the value of the stock of rice seized to respondent
authorities. Release of rice shall be subject to outcome of
the confiscation proceedings, if initiated under Section 6A
of the Act, 1955, against petitioners.
19. With regard to the release of vehicles, respondents are
directed to release the lorries bearing registration Nos. AP
16 TY 1688 and AP 28 TA 7432, subject to petitioners
furnishing bank guarantee’s by way of fixed deposit for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) in
favour of respondent authorities, with an undertaking that
they will not alienate the subject vehicle or alter its nature
or create any encumbrance on it. The release of the vehicle
shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings under
Section 6A of the Act, 1955. The petitioners are directed to
cooperate with the authorities by appearing on the date of
hearing of proceedings under Section 6A of the Act, 1955,
and for early conclusion of the said proceedings, if already
commenced.
13 JAK, J
WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
20. With the above observations, the writ petitions are
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 20.04.2026
KRR