Decided on December 10,1970

S.T.G. Abdul Latif Appellant
The Collector Of Tiruchirapalli And Others Respondents


Ramaprasada Rao, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a dealer in paddy and rice at Attur, Salem Dist. and who held a licence under the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1965, purchased 195 bags of paddy in Annamangalam and Puliyur village, Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli Dist. and was transporting the same to his business place at Attur in Salem Dist. It is not in dispute that on 9th July, 1969, when the goods were being transported, there was no movement control and the goods were free to move. But the lorries carrying the paddy were intercepted and stopped near Krishnapuram within Tiruchirapalli Dist. limits and the Taluk Supply Officer, Perambalur, with the help of Revenue Inspector directed the lorry drivers to take the goods to the Taluk Office at Perambalur where they were eventually unloaded and seized. When the occupants of the lorry were questioned, they gave a statement at that time which disclosed that the goods were being transported to the respective owners and in the absence of any control over movement, such transport was legal. On a perusal of the records produced, I am unable to find any indication that the authorities seized the goods in exercise of their powers under the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1969. How -ever, ultimately the goods were seized and the petitioner had to come to this Court for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the goods and deliver the same to him.
(2.) IT may be mentioned at the outset that Interim orders were secured by the petitioner whereunder he obtained possession of the goods on an undertaking that he would produce similar goods as and when required. The contention of the petitioner is that the seizure is ab initio illegal, because there is no Indication anywhere that action was taken under the Order of 1968. Secondly, it is stated that as movement of the goods was not controlled or restricted, the authorities had no power to intercept the goods and seize the same in the manner they did. Thirdly, it is argued that the prescription in S. 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, not having been followed, the seizure itself is defective and ultimately the action is not warranted in law.
(3.) THE learned Government Pleader would state that the action was takes under the Order of 1968 and the seizure was necessitated because the petitioner had no license to deal in rice and paddy under the Order of 1968 and bad no premises in which he could stack the goods for purposes of trade and commerce. The further contention is that action was takes bona fide under the Order of 1968, and that being in exercise of the statutory power, so mandamus should issue.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.