JAYAPANDIAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. Prakasam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned Government advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner is carrying on business in paddy and rice under a valid licence issued to him by the competent authority. The petitioner is running his business at No. 31, arisikkadai Street, Saathankulam. The second respondent had inspected the petitioner's place of business, on 22. 3. 98, and found a mini lorry with Registration No. TN-74-A-8926 loaded with 100 bags of boiled rice. Therefore, the second respondent had seized the mini lorry, as well as the stocks in the godown belonging to the petitioner i. e. 24 quintals of raw rice and 25 quintals of wheat, on mere suspicion that the goods were essential commodities meant to be distributed through the ration shops. After the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was completed, the first respondent had passed the impugned order vide proceedings in na. Ka. U. Po. 22892/98, dated 23. 11. 1998.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed only on a mere suspicion that the goods were essential commodities meant to be distributed through the ration shops and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.