SREE ESWARA RICE MILL INDUSTRIES, SHIMOGA AND OTHER Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the stage of preliminary hearing Sri M. R. Achar, learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, he has put in appearance for the respondents.

(2.) IN these petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the seizure and consequential proceedings held pursuant thereto are illegal and without jurisdiction. They have also sought for issue of a direction to the respondents to release the seized commodities.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is no seizure effected; that without the seizure the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 6A of the Act are without jurisdiction; that the order directing disposal of the seized commodities under S. 6A(2) of the Act can be passed only on being satisfy by the Deputy Commissioner that there is a prima facie case for proceeding under S. 6A of the Act, that the commodities were seized are subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do. It is submitted that no such findings are either separately recorded are apparent from the impugned orders in question. It is also further contended that the seized commodities - if at all the same are to be disposed of pending final decision in the case - cannot be disposed of by directing that the same be taken towards levy; that in such an event the seized commodities can be disposed of only in the manner it is done by the 1st respondent under the impugned orders, it is contended, does not fall in any one of the modes mentioned in S. 6A(2) of the Act. The "purchase price" otherwise known as levy price or levy rate at which the seized commodities are directed to be disposed of cannot be equated either to the controlled price or to the price to be paid under the proviso to S. 6A(2) of the Act.