Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court set aside the confiscation and penalty orders imposed by the Nizamabad district collector in a case involving alleged illegal transportation of rice suspected to be from the public distribution system (PDS). The judge was dealing with a criminal revision case filed by Mahajan Sachin and Md Yonus, the driver of a carrier and the owner of Chandra Rice Mill, challenging the orders passed by both the collector and the appellate Sessions Court. The dispute arose from an incident on October 16, 2017, when authorities seized rice stocks from the premises of Chandra Rice Mill in Bodhan and a vehicle, suspecting the stock to be PDS rice. Acting on this suspicion, the collector ordered 100 per cent confiscation of the seized rice stocks worth ₹15.78 lakh and imposed a penalty of ₹1.5 lakh on the driver. The appellate Sessions Court reduced the confiscation to 40 per cent and the penalty to ₹20,000, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court. The petitioners argued that there was no evidence to prove the rice was sourced from the PDS. They highlighted that rice, though a scheduled commodity under the Telangana State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016, is not listed as an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Furthermore, they contended that the relevant Control Order regulating rice had lapsed in 2014 and was not extended thereafter, rendering the seizure and subsequent penal actions legally untenable. Upon examining the record, the judge no concrete evidence or details regarding the origin of the rice, such as any link to ration cardholders, fair price shop dealers, or other sources associated with the PDS. Justice Sridevi noted the lack of material proof to substantiate the claim that the rice was meant for public distribution. The court also observed that the confiscation order was based merely on suspicion, without credible evidence or proper reasoning from the collector. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judge reiterated that penalties and confiscations under the Essential Commodities Act must be backed by clear and specific findings. In the absence of such evidence, the judge held that both the confiscation and penalty were unlawful. Allowing the criminal revision petitions, the judge ordered that the confiscated rice value be refunded to the rice mill owner and any penalty amount paid be reimbursed to the driver.Reserved matters cannot be reopenedJustice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court while dismissing a civil miscellaneous appeal reiterated that once a matter is heard and reserved for judgment, applications to reopen them under Order IX Rule 7 CPC are not maintainable. The judge affirmed the decision of the Additional Chief Judge, City Court, Hyderabad, in rejecting an application by defendants to set aside an ex parte order passed nearly a decade ago in a property dispute. The judge was dealing with a miscellaneous appeal filed by Vijetha Home Partnership Firm holding that the appellants (defendants) failed to justify the extraordinary delay in filing their written statement and seeking recall of the ex-parte proceedings. The case pertained to a suit filed in 2013 by the plaintiff for specific performance of a registered agreement of sale dated November 3, 2008, involving a flat at Vijetha Fortune in Narayanguda, Hyderabad. Despite multiple summons issued between 2013 and 2014 and even a paper publication, the defendants neither appeared nor filed a written statement within the extended time, resulting in an ex parte order on February 6, 2015. The defendants moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure only on December 2, 2019, the very day the trial court had reserved the suit for judgment. The appellants claimed they were engaged in parallel criminal proceedings related to the same transaction and could not obtain certain certified documents in time. However, the judge found no merit in the explanation, noting that the criminal case concluded in April 2019 and yet the application was filed eight months later without any adequate justification. The judge observed that the defendants had shown a lack of due diligence and that allowing their application at such a late stage would “seriously prejudice the plaintiff and defeat the ends of justice”.Sacked staff eligible for leave encashmentA two judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed four writ appeals filed by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) and partly allowed a writ appeal filed by an ex-employee, directing the corporation to pay interest on delayed leave encashment. The panel comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara dealt with four writ appeals preferred by TSRTC challenging the orders of a single judge directing the corporation to pay leave encashment benefits to former employees who had been removed from service. The fifth appeal was filed by an employee seeking interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment. Senior counsel G. Vidya Sagar, appearing for the TSRTC, argued that under Regulation 50(B) of the APSRTC Leave Regulations, employees removed from service were not entitled to leave encashment. He relied on judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Jharkhand High Court to support the stand that removed employees do not retain such benefits. Counsel for the respondents argued that the single judge relied on a previous division bench judgment of the Telangana High Court which held that Regulation 50(B) did not prohibit grant of leave encashment to removed employees. They contended that the leave earned while in service constitutes a property right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution and could not be denied in the absence of an express statutory bar. Agreeing with the ex-employees, the panel observed that Regulation 50(B) did not bar leave encashment in cases of removal and that benefits already earned during service cannot be forfeited without statutory backing. The panel held that such service benefits amount to ‘property’ under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be withdrawn through executive instructions alone. In one of the writ appeals preferred by a former employee. The panel also directed the corporation to pay interest at 6 per cent per annum on the delayed payment of leave encashment to the appellant, noting that the single judge had granted similar relief to others in connected matters.
Source link
