LAKSHMI RICE MILLS Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are similar, the same may be disposed of by the following common order.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court for necessary direction by way of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the value of the goods which have been seized on 29-1-1995 with necessary freight charges, halting charges, litigation expenses, miscellaneous expense and loss of reputation and interest at 12 per cent for the said amount from 29-1-1995.

(3.) In as much as the competent authority, who initiated action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act') ultimately found that the seizure effected on 29-1-1995 is bad and directed the authority to return the said goods or value thereof at P.D.S. rate, I am not traversing the facts leading to the seizure and subsequent order of the authority in both the cases. The limited question canvased by the petitioner is in as much as the authority has found that seizure is bad, petitioners are entitled either the actual goods seized or the market value prevailed on the date of seizure in the open market. It is the contention of the petitioners in both the cases that during Section 6-A enquiry all the relevant documents such as certificates issued by the Agricultural Market Committee and other connected Authorities including that of the check-post confirming the fact that the goods in question were in genuine were placed. The goods transported were also duly covered by delivery note (consignment sales), Agricultural Market Committee Receipt, entry in the G.V.R. proper endorsement on the records by the checkpost Authorities. On the basis of the above referred particulars the Presiding Officer in Section 6-A enquiry has categorically held that transaction was bona fide and the seizure of the goods and lorry were not made by the Authority concerned for any valid reason. However, while directing the Authority to seize the rice bags directed payment of value of goods at P.D.S. rate or in the alternative to deliver the goods itself, If the same is available. It is the further contention of the petitioners that in spite of the repeated request this Court has directed the Authority to dispose of the enquiry under Section 6-A within a period of two months, meawhile the rice bags seized were already sold for Distribution System. In those circumstance, the rice bags seized already were not available, hence the Authority has directed the respondents to return the value of the goods at P.D.S. rate. Aggrieved against the said orders, both the writ petitioners have approached this Court for necessary direction.