RABINDRA NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders as contained in Annexure-5 and Annexure-6. Annexure-5 is the order of the District Magistrate, Rohtas dated 02.05.2008 by which the petitioner's license has been cancelled on the ground that he has not paid levy since December, 2007. The mill of the petitioner was inspected on 31.03.2008 and it is alleged that on inspection, the petitioner refused to supply the documents as asked for by the Inspecting Team. Thereafter, by Annexure-6, it appears that 1733 quintals of paddy and 160.35 quintals of rice were seized on 03.05.2008.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per sub clause KHA of clause 10 of the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 2007, the confiscation of the paddy/rice could not take place if the mill owner did not pay the required levy. It is submitted that the paddy/rice cannot be confiscated on the ground that the mill owner is not required to put up display board of the price or that he has not supplied the documents and as such the other grounds as stated in the impugned order are not good grounds for confiscating the paddy/rice of the petitioner.