K N SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE petitioner had received a show cause notice dated 07.10.2008, wherein it was alleged that in the premises of the petitioner, 125 quintals of rice in 250 bags and one quintal of wheat in two bags were found during the raid conducted on 11.09.2008. The petitioner has however contended that the said stock which had been seized by the respondents has been lawfully acquired by the petitioner having purchased the same from one Sri Mohammed Mukthiyar Ahmed Inamdar of M/s. Inamdar Trading Company. The Deputy Commissioner on considering the contentions, by his order dated 26.10.2010 has arrived at the conclusion that the defense putforth by the petitioner cannot be accepted, since the contention of having purchased the said stock of rice and wheat has not been proved. But, from the seal of FCI which was available on 14 bags of rice, it would have to be concluded that the said stock of rice and wheat which was meant for public distribution had been hoarded by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority while considering the contentions putforth has affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner after recording his own reasoning with regard to the same. The said orders are therefore called in question in this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the very manner in which the proceedings has been conducted by the respondents would indicate that appropriate opportunity has not been granted to the petitioner, but on the other hand the respondents have proceeded with a pre -determined notion that the petitioner had not purchased the said food grains from open market. In that regard, the learned counsel has referred to the show cause notice (Annexure -D) to contend that the very contents therein would disclose that the Deputy Commissioner had already pre -determined the issue and the subsequent proceedings is only an empty formality.