K NALLATHAMBI Vs. EX OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that 130 bags of paddy, which had belonged to the petitioner, was seized by the third respondent, on 22. 7. 1992, while it was being transported from Udayakumar Rice Mill at Nethimedu, Salem to J. R. Rice Mill, Thiruchengode, alleging that the lorry driver was not in possession of any bill regarding the purchase of paddy and that no trip sheet containing the relevant entries regarding the transport of paddy was in the lorry. A report was made by the third respondent to the second respondent, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On receipt of the said report, the 2nd respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner and the owner of the lorry. It was contended by the petitioner that he had not contravened Clauses 4 (1) and 19 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984, read with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, after the completion of the enquiry, the 2nd respondent had passed an order, on 10. 10. 1992, confiscating the entire stock of paddy and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- on the owner of the lorry. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the first respondent, wherein the order passed by the 2nd respondent was modified holding that 75% of the seized paddy and 75% of the fine imposed on the owner of the lorry could be confiscated. In all other respects the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent, challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 10. 10. 1992, it has been stated that the second respondent had failed to note that the petitioner is the owner of the seized stock of paddy and that he is a licenced wholesale dealer in paddy and rice, having a licence with licence Number T. N. E. T. A. No. 1366 and he is the owner of J. R. Rice Mill at Tiruchengode. Further, A. Doraisamy who had sold the consignment of paddy to the petitioner is also a licenced wholesale dealer in paddy and rice, having licence in Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984, No. 151/slm/84-85. Therefore, there is no question of any contravention of Clauses 4 (1) or 19 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984. Merely because the lorry carrying the consignment of paddy had been parked near a petrol bunk and since the lorry driver was not in possession of any bill in respect of the consignment and that no entries had been made in the trip sheet, it cannot be concluded that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984, had been contravened. No mahazar of the seized consignment had been prepared and given to the driver of the lorry from whose custody the seizures had been made. Such failure to follow the mandatory requirement under the proviso to Clause 27 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984, is illegal and therefore, the goods seized in pursuance of an illegal seizure, cannot be ordered to be confiscated. Even though the petitioner had submitted claim applications, stating the circumstances in which the lorry with the consignment of paddy was found parked near the petrol bunk in Kondalampatty and had enclosed the copy of the bill and the lorry weighment slip in support of his claims, the second respondent had passed the impugned order without considering the same.