S KARUNAKARAN Vs. EX OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO OPERATION FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE MADRAS 9

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support 'thereof the order of the High Court, dated 9.3.93. and made herein and the Counter and Reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order in G.O.Ms. No,. 311 dated 22.6.1992 on the file of the 1st Respondent Comprised in the return of the respondents to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon -hearing the arguments of. The Court made the following order : - The orders of confiscation passed against the petitioners herein are under challenge in this writ petition.. Initially, confiscation was ordered by the second respondent District Collector of South Arcot District for the irregularity of transporting 130 bags, of rice from Periakolliyur Village in South Arcot District to Salem District in violation of the prohibition of inter district transportation contained in clause 4(1) and 8(1) of Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) order 1984, which was confirmed in appeal by the first respondent.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, I am of. the opinion that the orders impugned in this writ petition cannot be legally sustained. Of course, there is prohibition of transportation of rice from one District to another namely, South Arcot to salem. But then, it has to be remembered that the seizure in question was made while the vehicle Was still within South Arcot District at-Indili Village, more importantly 20 Kms away from Salem District Boarder Check Post, attracting the principle of locus penetentlae, in which event there is every likelihood of the petitioners changing the TV minds at any time between the place of seizure and the District boundary. The place of seizure at Indili Village within south Arcot District is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, applying the aforesaid principle of locus penetentiae, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any violation of the Control Orders in question vide decision of the Supreme Court in Nasun Sheikh v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1972 S.C.1610 Paragraphs 7 and 8). Consequently, the impugned orders of confiscation are to be set aside.