JOY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the District Collector, Kottayam dated 31-5-1997 (Ext. P3) which was confirmed by the Government on 8-9-1997 by Ext. P4 requires the petitioner, who is the registered owner of lorry bearing No. KL 7E 2579, either to surrender the vehicle to the Government as one confiscated, or at his option to pay cost of the boiled rice carried by the vehicle at the time as penalty. These orders are under challenge.

(2.) Petitioner is the son of an authorised wholesale dealer Mr. V. Thangiah who was having his business premises at Nedumkandam. On instructions of the rationed dealer, he had lent his lorry for the purpose of carrying a load of rice from Food Corporation godown, Chingavanam to Kattappana, However, on the date of incident that is 19-4-1997, the District Supply Officer had intercepted the lorry, at about 1 P.M., on a suspicion of malpractice. According to the officer, the lorry was travelling deviating from the normal route and as could be gatherable from the documents, in just opposite direction. He had reported to the District Collector about the incident. Case had been registered and the lorry had been released in favour of the registered owner. The explanation furnished by the transporter and the Ration Dealer was not convincing and in the circumstances, in exercise of powers under S.6A of the Essential Commodities Act, a penalty was imposed. A lenient view had been taken, whereby he could have remitted the price of articles which were clandestinely found as loaded in his vehicle.

(3.) The petitioner submits that if the respondents were not convinced about the explanation, an enquiry ought to have been carried out so as to ascertain and notice the veracity of the contentions that had been raised. It is also submitted that there was nothing like a pre notified route and the route prescribed was only for the purpose of reimbursement of lorry charges viz., the shortest route. This has been misconstrued as a restrictive condition and also the basis for presumption that there was unauthorised attempt for transportation of the articles.