STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. KANDASAMY PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ appeals raise the same questions of law and are dealt with together. The main arguments were addressed in Writ Appeal No.163 of 1975. These writ appeals can be disposed of together by a common order except in Writ Appeal No.202 of 1975, where, on the facts it is submitted that no case has been made out against the first respondent.

(2.) THE respondent in Writ Appeal No.163 of 1975 is a partnership firm M/s. Kandasamy Pillai, and licensed wholesale dealer in paddy and rice in Attur, Salem District. THE firm also owned a rice mill in Attur. THE firm also owned a rice mill in Attur. THE respondent filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second appellants herein, the District Supply Officer, Salem, to return the entire stock of paddy seized from the Respondent's premises on 20-7-1974 without any further proceedings as per the order in R.O.C. No.134944/J 10 dated 22-7-1974. THE impugned order purported to withdraw all the facilities that were given to the respondent for the time being pending proceedings to be taken for the offences committed by the firm. Ramanujam, J. who heard the Writ Petitions, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders. Hence these appeals by the State.

(3.) THE Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing, Regulation and Disposal of Stocks) Order, 1968, was passed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, Central Act 10 of 1955, read with the Government of India Order No. GSR. IV dated 24th July, 1967, with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. Cl.3 provides for the licensing of dealers, sub-cl. (11) of Cl.3 prohibits the sale of stocks from one wholesaler to another, and keeping of excess stocks is also a contravention of the order, Cl.8 provides that contravention of any of the conditions of the licensing order would enable the authority to cancel or suspend the licence. THE contravention is also punishable under S.3(2)(g) of the Essential Commodities Act under which the order was promulgated. A contravention of any of the rules made under S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act is punishable under S.7 of that Act. But the authorities have not proceeded with the cases registered against the Respondents as the matter was agitated in writ petitions in this Court.