MAHMOODA BEGUM RICEMILL Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND EX OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Manager of the petitioner-rice mill filed this writ petition under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside G.O.Ms. No. 416 dated 4-8-1987 passed by the 1st respondent declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The petitioner rice mill holds a valid licence under A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (L&D) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'). On receipt of information that the petitioner-rice mill was indulging in clandestine business, the Inspector of Police, Vigilence Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Nizamabad, along with his staff, inspected the rice mill and checked the accounts. On verification of the book balance with that of stocks available, the following variations are noticed : During the check it was also found that the particulars noted in the triplicate way bill Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 were found erased with some chemical and some other particulars were written thereon. Similarly at page Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the stock register the particulars noted were found erased with some chemical and some other particulars were written conveniently. As the petitioner-rice mill violated Condition No. 7 of the licence issued under Clause 3 of the Order, the Inspector of Police seized 197.80qtls. of paddy, 18.00qtls. of rice and 18.77qtls. of broken rice under a panchanama. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-mill on 29-4-1983 as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated for the contravention of the Order, for which the Manager of the Petitioner-mill submitted an explanation on 30-1-1981. In his explanation the Manager submitted that 104 bags of paddy stored in the house bearing No. 13-88 belongs to the Managing Partner of the mill that it was her agricultural produce but not the property of the mill. He also submitted that the produce is of the year 1982-83 from the 4 acres of land held by the wife of the Managing Partner of the Mill that it was sold in the last week of December, 1982 to one Kistanna who has purchased the same in the name of his and if the above 104 bags of paddy is taken into account, there would not be any variation in the stock. The explanation offered by the Manager of the Rice-mill does not find favour with the primary authority. With regard to tampering of way bills and the entries in the stock register, the primary authority observed as follows : "In the original way bill bearing Nos. 13, 14, 15 & 16 it was for the Col. (1) date of issue of way bill 2) address 3) description of goods, 4) 1 (3) No. of the vehicle 5. (a)'details of the consigner and 5(e) details of the agent found tempered with and erased with some chemicals. Further, from the perusal of the stock Register, B-Register seized from the mill premises it is seen that the page 4-5-6, 7, 8 the entries in col. (3) (opening balance of paddy) and Col. No. 15 (closing balance of paddy) are tampered with and erased with some chemicals." Regarding variation in the stocks, the primary authority observed :

(3.) Ultimately the primary authority held that since the petitioner has not chosen to explain to the other charges which are very grave in nature it must be deemed that he has no valid explanation to offer and it is clearly established that he has contravened conditions 3, 5 and 7 of the licence issued under clause 3 of the Order. On appeal, the order of confiscation of the seized stocks was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.