P RAMACHANDRA CHETTY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the proceedings of seizure of the foodgrains to be quashed by the issue of an appropriate writ or direction.

(2.) The petitioner is a licensed foodgrains dealer at Chittoor. On 9th and 10th February 1973, the D.S P. Vigilance Cell, Inspectors and other Revenue Officials entered the residence-cum-business premises of the petitioner, searched the premises and seized nearly 2,000 bags of foodgrains. According to the officials that raided the shop, there was suppression of stock as compared with the details on the price list board exhibited in the shop. As per the board, the stock on hand was 287 bags of rice on 8-2-1973. After the sale of 193 bags on 8-2-1973, the opening balance on 9-2-1973 was 94 bags only but there was excess of 1820 bags. The officials thus allege that the petitioner contravened Clause 7-A of the A.P. Food grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1964. They, therefore, seized the excess stock.

(3.) The petitioner, among other grounds, also raised the contention that Clause 3(i) of the Essential Commodities Act under which the Food grains Dealers' Licensing Order of 1964 is issued, infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. The further contention is that Clause 6 and sub-clause (c) of Clause 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966 are in excess of the delegated power under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The far more important question raised is that it is only a reasonable belief that any contravention of the provisions of the Order or the conditions of any licence issued thereunder has been or is being, or is about to be committed, that would give jurisdiction or empower the licensing authority or any officer specified in Clause 11 of the Licensing Order to enter and search the premises and that only on such belief he could seize the goods, but in the instant case no grounds are either alleged in the counter, nor any material is placed before the court to show that the officers concerned had any such reasonable belief either for entering or searching the premises or for seizing the foodgrains.