R KUPPUSWAMY GRAMANI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, for issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents and their officers from proceeding to act under the provisions of the Madias Revenue Recovery Act 2 of 1864 in respect of the rice mill belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner was a wholesale dealer under the Madras Rice Ration Scheme in Cholavaram firka for a period of one year from October 1949 to October 1950. During that period he became indebted to the Provincial Government in respect of rice, milo and wheat supplied to him in a sum of about Rs. 25000. The licence was not renewed for the year 1950-51. He alleged in the affidavit that he had paid over nearly. Rs. 11000. It is represented to me that the balance of the amount due to the Government was also paid off. If the debt had been discharged in full, the Government would no doubt drop the proceedings. But I shall proceed with this application on the basis of the allegations made in the affidavit. To realise the amount due, the Tahsildar as an officer empowered on this behalf was bringing the mill and its machinery to sale' under the provisions of the madras Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner alleging that Section 52 of the same act, which confers a power on the Government to recover the said amounts due through the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act is constitutionally bad, filed the aforesaid writ for restraining the respondents from bringing the mill to sale.

(2.) SECTION 52, Madras Revenue Recovery Act, reads:

(3.) THE impugned clause of the section, namely,