Y NESAIYAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER NAGERCOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. B. Ganthimathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first petitioner is a licensed trader of paddy and rice, doing business in the name and style of Ambiga Stores. The second petitioner is the owner of the Tempo Van bearing Registration No. TN-72-Z 950. In the course of his business, the first petitioner had placed orders before the Guru Murugan SR Rice Mill at Ramakrishnapuram, Nanguneri Taluk, for the purchase of 101 bags of rice. Based on the orders placed by the first petitioner, the said Guru Murugan SR Rice Mill had raised Bill No. 1, dated 12. 12. 98, and the rice was loaded in the second petitioner's tempo van and taken to the first petitioner's place of business at Nagercoil. However, the second respondent had intercepted the vehicle and seized the tempo van and the 101 bags of rice, on the alleged suspicion that the tempo van had 24 bags of rice meant for the Public Distribution System. In spite of the fact that a valid bill and the other relevant documents were available with the driver of the tempo van at the time of the seizure, the first respondent had confiscated the 24 bags of rice and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the tempo van owner, by his proceedings No. F192155/98, dated 23. 7. 1999.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that as against the impugned order passed by the first respondent a statutory appeal is available to the petitioners, under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, reads as follows: