A VENKATESAN Vs. EX OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records insofar as it relates to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/the Ex officio Secretary to Government in his proceedings No.G.O.Ms.No.88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004, and to quash the same insofar as it relates to confiscation of 25 bags of boiled rice and consequently to disburse the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice.

(2.) THE petitioner is a licensed trader to deal with paddy and rice and he has also been running rice mill in the name and style of "Aruna Lakshmi Rice Mill" at Dindukal for several years. After receiving the order for purchase of 320 bags of boiled rice from another license trader of Jothi Stores, Erumadu, the petitioner sold 320 bags of boiled rice and by issuing valid bill Nos.6 & 7, dated 02.07.1996, the same was transported in two lorries bearing registration Nos.Py-01-E-2034 and TN-27-V-2745 by loading 160 bags rice in each lorry. Unfortunately, when the first lorry left the petitioner's destination, on its way, the same was seized by the Inspector of Police Civil Supplies CID, Coodalore at Paraliyar and the second lorry was seized by the Revenue officers while it was parked nearby the road side, since the same got breakdown and therefore, under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent and upon enquiry it was found that rice was properly transported through licence and permission, from concerned Authorities, and thereafter he released the lorry and goods insofar as it relates to PY-01-E-2035 but in respect of the second lorry bearing registration No.TN-27-V-2745, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.K.2/SR/100/96, dated 23.10.1996 confiscated 155 bags of boiled rice.

(3.) IN reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner while appearing before the appellate authority though he was able to explain with the relevant bills and vouchers for having purchased 130 bags of boiled rice, he miserably failed to produce the relevant bills and vouchers in respect of 25 bags of boiled rice. Therefore, the 1st respondent while returning 130 bags of boiled rice declined to return 25 bags of boiled rice since the petitioner failed to satisfy the appellate authority at the time of enquiry by production of valid evidence in support of his claim therefor. IN this view of the matter, it was further contended that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be interfered with. If at all, this Court finds any reasonable point in favour of the petitioner for receiving 25 bags of boiled rice, the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate authority and upon further production of acceptable evidence, the question of returning of 25 bags of boiled rice would be decided by the first appellate authority and on that basis she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.