D BALARAMA REDDIAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUDDALORE

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.) IT is stated that the petitioner was carrying on rice mill business under the name and style of Raani Modern Rice at Pudukkadai, Cuddalore Taluk and District. The second respondent had inspected the business premises of the petitioner, on 19. 7. 1998 and seized 247 bags of boiled rice stating that the rice was meant to be supplied through the ration shops. Based on the report of the seizing authority, the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings in K5/46703/96, dated 26. 8. 1999, by which the entire seized goods of 247 bags of boiled rice had been confiscated.

(3.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent had placed reliance on the mere statement of the seizing authority for passing the impugned order without any other evidence being available and without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to refute the allegations made by the respondents.