A. Venkatesan vs The Ex officio Secretary to Government, Co-operatation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department and The District Revenue Officer

T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the

entire records insofar as it relates to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/the Ex officio Secretary to Government in his proceedings

No. G.O. Ms. No. 88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004, and to quash the same insofar as it

relates to confiscation of 25 bags of boiled rice and consequently to disburse the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice.

The petitioner is a licensed trader to deal with paddy and rice and he has also been running rice mill in the name and style of ""Aruna Lakshmi

Rice Mill"" at Dindukal for several years. After receiving the order for purchase of 320 bags of boiled rice from another license trader of Jothi

Stores, Erumad, the petitioner sold 320 bags of boiled rice and by issuing valid bill Nos. 6 & 7, dated 02.07.1996, the same was transported in

two lorries bearing registration Nos. Py-01-E-2034 and TN-27-V-2745 by loading 160 bags rice in each lorry. Unfortunately, when the first lorry

left the petitioner''s destination, on its way, the same was seized by the Inspector of Police Civil Supplies CID, Cuddalore at Paraliyar and the

second lorry was seized by the Revenue officers while it was parked nearby the road side, since the same got breakdown and therefore, u/s 6(A)

of the Essential Commodities Act, enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent and upon enquiry it was found that rice was properly transported

through licence and permission, from concerned Authorities, and thereafter he released the lorry and goods insofar as it relates to PY-01-E-2035

but in respect of the second lorry bearing registration No. TN-27-V-2745, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. Na.Ka.K.2/SR/100/96,

dated 23.10.1996 confiscated 155 bags of boiled rice.

Aggrieved by the above said order of confiscation, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal u/s 6(C) of Essential Commodities Act, before the

1st respondent herein. After perusal of the relevant records, having found that it was not a smuggling case, the appeal was partly allowed and the

confiscation of rice was reduced from 155 bags of boiled rice to 25 bags of boiled rice by releasing the remaining 130 bags of boiled rice as per

G.O. Ms. No. 88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004. Aggrieved by the said order forfeiting only

25 bags of boiled rice, the present writ petition has been filed.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made only two submissions. Firstly, the respondents having come to the conclusion that the

petitioner is entitled to receive 155 bags of boiled rice, the respondents are liable to pay the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice as on the date

of seizure of the rice. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court, reported in : AIR 1998 Madras 22 (Lakshmi

Rice Mills and Anr. v. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai and Ors.), wherein this Court has held that the valuation of the goods seized shall be

ascertained in terms of the then market value of the goods prevailing at the time of seizure. Secondly, he has also urged that once the respondent

comes to the conclusion that the appeal of the petitioner deserves to be allowed in respect of 130 bags of boiled rice as per G.O. Ms. No. 88,

Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004, the confiscation of only 25 bags of boiled rice cannot be

legally maintainable or tenable. On that basis it was further argued that the petitioner is entitled to have the value of 160 bags of boiled rice as on

the date of seizure of the boiled rice.

In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner while appearing before the

appellate authority though he was able to explain with the relevant bills and vouchers for having purchased 130 bags of boiled rice, he miserably

failed to produce the relevant bills and vouchers in respect of 25 bags of boiled rice. Therefore, the 1st respondent while returning 130 bags of

boiled rice declined to return 25 bags of boiled rice since the petitioner failed to satisfy the appellate authority at the time of enquiry by production

of valid evidence in support of his claim therefore .In this view of the matter, it was further contended that the impugned order passed by the 1st

respondent cannot be interfered with. If at all, this Court finds any reasonable point in favour of the petitioner for receiving 25 bags of boiled rice,

the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate authority and upon further production of acceptable evidence, the question of returning of

25 bags of boiled rice would be decided by the first appellate authority and on that basis she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

Admittedly, the petitioner was found to be only of 130 bags of boiled rice by the appellate authority, namely, the 1st respondent herein. When

the appellate authority has categorically held that the petitioner is the owner to the extent of 130 bags of boiled rice, out of 155 bags of boiled rice,

it come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to receive 130 bags of boiled rice for the reason that he was able to produce acceptable

evidence in support of his claim to the satisfaction of the appellate authority at the time of enquiry by producing bills, vouchers, etc. When the 1st

respondent, appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the owner of 130 bags of boiled rice, the refusal of returning 25

bags of boiled rice by the appellate authority is not supported by any reason. Further, it is neither the case of the respondents nor the appellate

authority that the petitioner has smuggled the rice in the above said vehicle. If it is so, the appellate authority would not have returned the vehicle as

well as the rice namely, 130 bags of boiled rice as per G.O. Ms. No. 88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated

19.03.2004. Once the 1st respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the owner of the 155 bags of boiled rice and also came

forward to pay the value of the boiled rice as per the Judgment of this Court, reported in AIR 1998 Madras 22 (Lakshmi Rice Mills and Anr. v.

The District Revenue Officer, Madurai and Ors.), the petitioner is entitled to receive the then prevailing market value of the goods seized by the

2nd respondent at the time of seizure. Almost in a similar circumstance, His Lordship Raju, J. as he then was, in W.P. Nos. 12485 to 12488 dated

25.02.1992 observed as follows:

I am of the view that the legitimate rights of a citizen to have his property restored or its market value reimbursed cannot be denied on the plea that

there is no specific provision in the Act to provide for such restitution or reimbursement. The right of a citizen in this regard is secured under Article

19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned order insofar as the respondent directs the payment of the

value of the bags seized and disposed of at the levy price rate shall stand hereby quashed and consequently there shall be a direction to the second

respondent to pay the respective petitioners the value ascertained in terms of the then prevailing market value of paddy in open market....

I am of the view that the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case.

Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. While doing so, the

respondents are directed to pay the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.