M. V. KUPPUSWAMI Vs. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of a public carrier bearing MSV 9380. On 6 -10 -1974, three persons, Nagappa Naicker and Kumar, both of Nazarathpet and Manicka Mudaliar of Thirumalisai are said to have entrusted with the petitioner 80 bags of paddy and one bag of ragi for transport from Edayarpakkam to Nazarethpet both of which are inside Sriperumbudur taluk in Chingleput Dt. As there was no restriction on the movement of the goods from one place to another within the same taluk, the petitioner is said to have accepted the paddy and ragi entrusted to him for transport and the bags were loaded in his lorry MSV 9380. The lorry when it was proceeding from Edayarpakkam to Nazarethpet had been intercepted by the first respondent at Thirumangalam and the entire 81 bags found in the lorry had been seized.

(2.) THE petitioner questions the validity of the said seizure on various grounds. Firstly he contends that no mahazar was prepared and no independent witnesses were called to witness the search and seizure. Secondly he contends that the seizure is in any event, invalid and illegal as there is no violation of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1970, or any other law. The petitioner states that he is under an obligation as a carrier to deliver the goods at Nazarethpet to the above three persons who entrusted the bags and that they are actually demanding the delivery of the goods.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contends that a seizure could validly be made under clause 14 of the Licensing Order only when there is reason to believe that any provision of the Licensing Order has been or is about to be contravened, after following the procedure set out in Sections 102 and 103 Crl. P. C. which stand attracted to a seizure made under clause 14 by virtue of sub -clause (3) therein that in this case the procedure contemplated by Sections 102 and 103. Cri. P. C. had not in fact been followed and that till the filing of the counter it has nowhere been stated by the respondent as to which of the provisions of the Licensing order had been contravented and it is only in the counter -affidavit it has been urged that clause 3 (1) of the Licensing Order had been contravened.