(1.) The facts which give rise to this revision are these : The Respondents are the owners of a rice mill known as Venkateswara Rice Mill, situated at Sirvel in Allagadda Taluk. They have been carrying on the business of milling paddy from 2nd January, 1970. They applied for two licences under the Abdhra Pradesh Food Grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Order, and also for a licence under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. They obtained a food grains- licence on 22nd January, 1970 under the Order and also a licence on 27th December, 1969 under the Act. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell (Civil Supplies), Anantapur, paid a visit to the rice mill of the petitioners. on 27th June, 1970, and inspected the same. He found the following stock in the rice mill on that day :- <FRM>133.htm</FRM>
(2.) He verified the accounts of the mill and noticed that the Respondents had been carrying on business in paddy and rice from 2nd January, 1970 to 21st January, 1970 without a valid licence required under the Order. He also noticed that the Respondents had failed to deliver the mill levy to the Food Corporation of India, Kurnool, even after obtaining the licences under the Order and the Act as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy ) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967. He also found that the petitioners have disposed of the rice to private dealers in Kurnoof District and in other districts of the State. Consequently, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell (Civil Supplies), Anantapur, seized the said 714 quintals of rice under panchanamas and submitted his report with the record of enquiry to the Collector, Kurnool, for further action.
(3.) A notice calling for an explanation was issued to the respondents under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In their explanation to the show cause notice, the Respondents have not denied the various irregularities and violations of the control orders but pleaded that these irregularities were committed due to being new to the business and inexperience. They also pleaded that there was no mala fide intention as such and the contravention of the relevant provisions of the Order and the Act may be condoned. The Collector found that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the (A. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing) Order and the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967. He, therefore, ordered that under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the said 714 quintals of rice seized front the Respondents be confiscated to Government. An appeal against this order was preferred before the District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur who is the appellate authority under the Essential Commodities Act. This appeal was allowed and the 714 quintals or rice confiscated to Government by the order of the Collector was directed to be released. Hence the State has preferred this revision against the order of the appellate authority.