1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

               “… to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in registering the case vide FIR No.386 of 2025 dated 14.12.2025 U/s 318(4)BNS, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without the sanction of law against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to release the seized vehicle of the petitioner vehicle lorry Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing Reg. No.TS 12 UD 5201to the petitioner and pass…”

2. Heard Mr. B.Ramdas, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.4.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is the owner of Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing Reg. No.TS 12 UD 5201. On 14.12.2025, respondent No.4 i.e., Station House Officer of Chandrayangutta Police Station seized the vehicle alleging that PDS rice was being illegally transported in the vehicle and registered a crime vide FIR No.386 of 2025.

4. That respondent No.3 i.e., Chief Rationing Officer valued the seized vehicle at Rs.4,00,000/- without following due process of law, that the value of seized goods was shown as Rs.1,05,000/- and the total amount was estimated at Rs.5,05,000/- and a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed for release of the seized vehicle. The imposition of penalty is challenged on the ground that it is illegal and arbitrary.

5. It is the case of petitioner that no opportunity was accorded to the petitioner to establish his case that he had no knowledge of the alleged transportation of PDS rice.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7611 of 2026 (Ex.P4, Page No.26), submitted that similar orders be passed. Learned counsel further invited the attention of this Court to the documents annexed to the writ affidavit i.e., order under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act, 1955’). It is pointed out that an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, is preferred before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and that the order of Chief Rationing Officer is dated 24.01.2026.

7. Learned counsel has submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283), held that vehicles seized during investigation should not be allowed to remain idle in police custody for long periods and appropriate orders for interim release should be passed to prevent deterioration of the property.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that PDS rice meant for public distribution was being illegally transported, hence, the crime was registered.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.24 of 2022 and 1209 of 2023 and submitted that this Court is bound by the judgment of the Division Bench and that the vehicle cannot be released, as Section 6A of the Act, 1955, has been concluded.

10. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

11. It is not in dispute that vehicle was seized by respondent authorities and the FIR bearing No.386 of 2025 was registered on the ground that vehicle of the petitioner (Reg. No.TS 12 UD 5201) was seized on 14.12.2025 on the allegation that it was carrying PDS rice valued at an amount of Rs.5,05,000/-. It is also not in dispute that penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed for release of vehicle. The order passed by the Chief Rationing Officer under Section 6A proceedings is dated 24.01.2026 (Ex.P1, Page No.14). The following is the relevant portion of the order:

               “I have perused the records placed before me. The respondent-2 appeared in the court of the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad. He did not file any written statement but orally accepted the offence and also pleaded guilty. Respondent-1has failed to attend the case for hearing even after receipt of the show cause notice. He did not file any written statement and also did not seek any adjournment, which clearly shows that the respondent-1 has nothing to represent against the show cause notice and accepted his guilt. Hence the charge framed against the respondents is held proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

               In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made supra, in exercise of powers conferred under section 6-A (1) (a) of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the case is set ex-parte and I hereby order for.

               a) Confiscation of entire seized (25) Quintals of PDS Rice in favour of the Government.

               b) Penalty of Rs:- 1,00,000/- Rupees One Lakh only) is imposed for release of the seized vehicle bearing No: TS 12 UD 5201.

               The Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Yakutpura Circle, Hyderabad is directed to take consequential action and direct the respondent-2 cum- owner of the vehicle to remit the penalty amount into the Government account under the Head of Account of "1456"- Civil Supplies, 800 - Others receipts, 81 other items and 25000602014-DDO Code by way of challan.

               An appeal against this order lies under section 6-C of the EC Act, 1955, before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad within (30) days from the date of communication.”

12. On a perusal of the order, it is apparent that appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, can be preferred before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge within 30 days.

13. Till date, no appeal has been filed under Section 6C of the Act, 1955. This Court queried the learned counsel for petitioner about the filing of any appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955 and the counsel submitted that steps are being taken to prefer an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955.

14. Now, coming to the aspect of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.24 of 2022 and 1209 of 2023, it is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the judgment:

               “5. Admittedly, a final order in the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to, as "the Act"), has been passed on 09.02.2021. Therefore, we are not inclined to examine the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

               6. Admittedly, against the order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, an appeal lies under Section 6-C of the Act. The appellant has been prosecuting the remedy of the writ petition as well as the writ appeals and since the order passed under Section 6-A of the Act has been passed during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, we grant liberty to the appellant to file an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. In case such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall treat the same to be within limitation by according the benefit contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is clarified that all questions, including the question whether the commodity in question is covered under the Act, are kept open to be agitated in the appeal which may be preferred under Section 6-C of the Act by the appellant. It is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case of the parties.”

15. On a perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench, it is apparent that Division Bench has permitted to file an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, within a period of the two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The contents of the paragraph No.4 of the Division Bench judgment are as follows:

               “4. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the appellant had filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.19526 of 2020, against the action of the Station House Officer, Gundala Police Station, in seizing Eicher 10.59 RHD E CAB HSD BS I V bearing No.TS 12 UC 7693 along with 120 bags (60 quintals) of rice under panchanama dated 30.10.2020 and sought a direction to the Station House Officer to release the same. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 30.04.2021, has dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant had filed a review petition, namely Review I.A.No.1 of 2021, seeking review of the aforesaid order. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 24.12.2021, has dismissed the review petition. Hence, these appeals.”

16. On a perusal of contents of paragraph No.4, when read with contents of paragraph Nos.5 and 6, the final order in the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, were passed on 09.02.2021 and the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 30.04.2021 dismissed the writ petition. Subsequently, a review petition was filed and was dismissed on 24.12.2021.

17. The Division Bench granted liberty to the appellant therein to prefer an appeal without going into merits of the case and that limitation also was to be considered by the appellate authority as if it is within limitation period by according the benefit contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The contention advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the basis of Division Bench judgment do not fit into the facts of the present case.

18. Having considered the entire factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner prefers an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, within two (02) weeks and the documents of the vehicle are presented before the Officer, the vehicle shall be released forthwith on payment of Rs.75,000/-. This Court has noted the fact that a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- has been levied, this Court deems it appropriate that payment of Rs.1,00,000/- would be a large amount and that would burden the petitioner.

19. It is also trite to take note of the fact that the High Court has been consistently directing payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- for release of the seized vehicle in all writ petitions which were filed in similar matters. 20. It is fact that proceedings under Section 6A of Act, 1955, are passed and it is five months that petitioner has not preferred an appeal.

21. Petitioner approached this Court seeking indulgence of the Court that he shall file an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, challenging the proceedings passed under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, dated 24.01.2026. This Court is of the opinion that amount of Rs.75,000/- would be suffice and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would burden the petitioner financially.

22. If petitioner does not present the proof of filing of an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, before concerned Court, vehicle shall not be released. It is only upon the petitioner showing/adducing proof of filing the appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955 before the Metropolitan Court, the vehicle shall be released.

23. Upon showing/adducing proof of filing an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, respondents are directed to release Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing Reg. No.TS 12 UD 5201, subject to petitioner furnishing bank guarantee by way of fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousands only) in favour of respondent authorities, with an undertaking that he will not alienate the subject vehicle or alter its nature or create any encumbrance on it till the conclusion of 6C proceedings.

24. The release of the vehicle shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 6C of the Act, 1955. Petitioner is directed to appear regularly on the dates of hearing of proceedings under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, and shall co-operate for early conclusion of the said proceedings.

25. Taking a cue from the order of the Division Bench which granted permission to file an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, this Court deems it appropriate that petitioner be permitted to file an appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the concerned Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

26. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.