KISSAN RICE INDUSTRIES KALLI PALAYA VILLAGE, BY ITS PARTNER MOHAMMED SULIMAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, TUMKUR AND THE TAHSILDAR, TUMKUR TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 09.01.2007 impugned at Annexure -H and consequential notice dated 03.09.2009 at Annexure -J to the petition. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a rice mill owned by the partners as per the deed dated 01.04.2005. The petitioner is stated to have leased the mill on 01.09.2007 in favour of M/s. Lakshminarayana Enterprises. The situation leading to the instant proceedings is at a point when the petitioner was running the rice mill, he had stored about 195 Quintals of rice which had been entrusted to the petitioner by one of his customers M/s. Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri. The respondent -authorities while inspecting the premises on finding the said stock had prepared a mahazar dated 17.03.2003 and a show -cause notice dated 26.03.2003 was issued. Subsequently, an order dated 09.01.2007 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner by which the said quantity of rice seized has been forfeited. In pursuance thereof, a notice dated 03.09.2009 at Annexure -J by which the petitioner is aggrieved is issued.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the notice to recover the amounts at Annexure -J are not justified, inasmuch as the very stock of rice to which the respondents refer does not belong to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that though in the year 2003, the stock of rice was in the premises, it was on behalf of M/s. Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri and despite the petitioner having produced the document in that regard, the respondents have not taken any action against the owner of the stock but had continued to take action in respect of the petitioner which is not sustainable. It is therefore contended that the amount as demanded from the petitioner is not justified and even the order impugned at Annexure -H passed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

(3.) HAVING taken note of the action, two aspects arise in the present case. Firstly, since the order dated 09.01.2007 impugned at Annexure -H is assailed, the question would be as to whether the order forfeiting the stock of rice is justified or not. In that regard the fact that the stock of rice was found in the premises of the petitioner cannot be seriously in dispute. The entire case of the petitioner is that one of its customer M/s. Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri had kept the stock of rice in the premises of the petitioner for polishing and such stock of rice has been seized by the respondents. To the said extent, the petitioner had relied on a document which is produced at Annexure -F herein.