DAMODAR RICE INDUSTRIES REP Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 26th november 1999 made in Writ Petition No. 29411 of 1994 by the learned Single Judge of this court, wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the correctness of the order dated 27th July 1994 passed by the 1st respondent - State government dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the correctness of the order dated 3rd January 1994 passed by the 2nd respondent confiscating 499. 40 quintals of paddy and 68 quintals of rice in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 6a of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE facts in brief which are not in serious dispute may be stated as hereunder: the appellant is a rice industry. The premises of the appellant was inspected by the 3rd respondent - Food Inspector attached to the office of the Tahsildar, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga district on 3rd February 1992 and found only 499. 40 quintals of paddy as against 569. 04 quintals and 68 quintals of rice as against 153. 20 quintals required to be stocked in the premises of the appellant. In other words, the 3rd respondent found that there was a shortage of 69. 64 quintals of paddy and 85. 20 quintals of rice. The 3rd respondent also seized the quantity of the paddy and the rice which was stocked in the premises of the appellant. On the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent -Deputy Commissioner after conducting necessary enquiry as prescribed under law made an order dated 3rd January 1994 confiscating the entire stock of paddy and rice which was seized by the 3rd respondent. The said order was affirmed in appeal by the 1st respondent. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has as noticed by us earlier dismissed the Writ Petition.

(3.) SRI Chaitanya Hegde, learned Counsel for the appellant challenging the correctness of the impugned order made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders impugned passed by the 2nd respondent dated 3rd january 1994 and the order dated 3rd February 1992 passed by the respondents -2 and 3 respectively are also liable to be quashed on the ground that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to pass an order confiscating the paddy and rice which was kept in stock in the premises of the appellant. According to the learned Counsel, it is only the foodgrains in respect of which shortage was found by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent could have proceeded to make an order of confiscation of foodgrains. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of SUBHAS motichand SHETH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1. 1977 (2) Kar. L. J. 272 and also the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of PREM KUMAR KHANDELIA v. STATE OF west BENGAL 1988 (1) Crimes Page 259. Secondly, he submitted that even assuming that the 2nd respondent has the power in law to confiscate the stock seized for contravention of the order made under Section 3 of the Act, the said power is required to be exercised by the 2nd respondent in a fair and reasonable manner and keeping in mind the gravity of the nature of the contravention committed by the appellant. According to the learned Counsel, in the impugned orders both the respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded on the basis that the 2nd respondent is required to confiscate the entire stock seized. It is his submission that the respondents - 1 and 2 have failed to apply their mind with regard to the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it was imperative for the 2nd respondent to confiscate the entire food grains i. e. paddy and rice seized by the 3rd respondent. It is his submission that since both these contentions being questions of law though the said contentions were not seriously urged before the learned Single Judge, this Court while exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India should consider the same in the interest of justice. Thirdly, he submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as the respondents 1 and 2 that the appellant has contravened the order issued under Section 3 of the Act is erroneous in law.