C GUNASEKARAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. Prakasam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Subramanian, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that certain items of wheat and rice which were kept in the petitioner's premises had been seized by the 1st respondent by his impugned proceedings, dated 12. 5. 99, for the reason that the licence granted to the petitioner had expired. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the impugned proceedings stating that it has been issued without application of mind and without the authority of law.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent even though the petitioner had the relevant records to purchase the items in question and that the said items were not kept by the petitioner illegally.