AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—The prayer in the Writ Petition is to call for the records on the file of the first Respondent made in G.O.Ms. No. 280 Roc K13/108386/88 dated 4.10.1988 and quash the same.
The Special Tahsildar, Civil Supplier, Tindivanam with his party, on information that the Petitioner was selling rice and sugar in the private house without valid licence inspected the house of the Petitioner bearing door No. 1/87 Vellimedu Pettai Road, Kodima Village, Tindivanam taluk and at the time of search, it was found that there were 5 bags of sugar and 10 bags of rice in the house of the Petitioner and according to the Special Tahsildar, when he made an enquiry at the time of search, the Petitioner admitted that he has purchased 10 bags of rice and 5 bags of sugar in order to sell them in retail. The Special Tahsildar found that there was no licence for the Petitioner to sell the rice and sugar, and hence he seized the rice and sugar under a mahazar and he sent a report to the District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, the second Respondent herein and the 2nd Respondent has issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner had violated the provisions of 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, (1984) (hereinafter referred to as the "84 Order") and Rule 6(1) to (4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order (1982) (hereinafter referred to as "82 Order"). There was no reply by the Petitioner and the Petitioner did also not attend the enquiry. Thereafter the second Respondent has passed the order of confiscation for violation of Rules 8(1) of the said 84 Order and Rule 6(1) to (4) of the 82 Order. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the first Respondent. In the grounds of appeal before the first Respondent he has raised a plea that the Petitioner raised paddy crops to the extent of 75 bags in his own land situate in various survey numbers and converted 20 bags of paddy into 10 bags of rice and stored the said rice bags in his residential premises for domestic purposes and for the purpose of his daughter''s marriage. He has also pleaded that he has purchased 5 bags of sugar and the same has been stored for the purpose of his daughter''s marriage which was fixed on 5.9.1988. He has also stated that the Petitioner has not sold any sugar to any person and there is no evidence for the same. Along with the petition he has also filed a document to show that he was owner of the land and a copy of the marriage invitation fixing the marriage, of his daughter on 5.9.1988 filed before the first Respondent and there was a representation on behalf of the writ Petitioner to the effect that since the marriage of the daughter was fixed on 5.9.1988 and due to the Vanniars'' agitation he was not able to attend the enquiry and no opportunity was given to defend his case and there was no bad antecedent on the part of the writ Petitioner. The first Respondent, however, came to the conclusion since the Petitioner has admitted in his statement that the rice was purchased from a contractor and the sugar was purchased by his son from a co-operative society workman, were proved. He also found that the statements obtained by the Petitioner under duress were not correct as the writ Petitioner could have represented the same before the second Respondent immediately after the seizure and the writ Petitioner has not made any such statement. He also held that if the Petitioner was unable to attend the hearing due to strike, the writ Petitioner could have informed the same to the District Revenue Officer by post, which was also not done by him. The first Respondent further held that the writ Petitioner in his evidence has not explained that he was an agriculturist and rice was the resultant paddy. In that view of the matter, he rejected the various grounds raised by the writ Petitioner and dismissed the appeal, it is against the order, present Writ Petition has been filed.
In the Writ Petition, the writ Petitioner has raised a plea that the Respondents have failed to establish that the Petitioner was an agriculturist or a dealer and without any evidence the Respondents have come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was a dealer and that the confiscation ordered by the second Respondent, which was confirmed by the first Respondent should be set aside. It is also pleaded that there was no violation of clauses 8(1) of the 1984 Order as that order is only applicable to the wholesale dealer in paddy and rice and not to the agricultural retail merchant of paddy and rice. In so far as the alleged violation of clauses 6(1) to (4) of the 1982 Order is concerned it is stated that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner has purchased sugar from the open market and stored them in his house for the purpose of retail sale and in the absence of any evidence, the said Rules 6(1) to (4) of the 1982 Order were also not applicable. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds raised in the Writ Petition. He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Manipur Administration Vs. M. Nila Chandra Singh, .
Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner at the time of seizure has admitted that he used to sell rice without any licence and it was also established that he was not an agriculturist. He has also submitted that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner has stored the articles for the purpose of his daughter''s marriage and further submitted that the notice were issued under the provisions of the Section 6(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, after complying with all the formalities, the seizure was effected. He submitted that there is no ground to interfere with the well considered order of the first Respondent confirming the order of confiscation made by the second Respondent,
I have carefully considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is no doubt true that at the time of seizure of the article in the mahazar there was a statement to the effect that the Petitioner has admitted that he used to purchase sugar and rice and used to sell them in retail market. But it is not clear from the statement whether the Petitioner has signed the statement, and proceedings do not show that there is any statement signed by the Petitioner to show that the Petitioner has admitted to the effect that he used to purchase sugar and rice and sell in retail. That apart, in the show-cause notice issued by (he second Respondent dated 29.8.1988 the Petitioner was charged for the violation of Rule 8(1) of 1984 Order and Rule 6(1) to (4) of 1982 Order. In so far as Rule 8(1) of 1984 Order is concerned, it reads as follows:
Levy. (1) Every dealer, other than a retail dealer, who either by himself through his agent or any other person acting on his behalf purchases any essential trade articles mentioned in schedule I to this order and during such period as may be specified by the Government, shall as soon as may be, and in any case not less than three days, after the date of such purchase, deliver such portion of the stock of the essential trade article purchased, as the Government may specify and subject to a maximum of fifty per centum at such price as may be fixed by the Government in this behalf, to such agencies or officers of the Government as the licensing authority, or the authorised officer may specify in this behalf.
Rule 6(1) to (4) of the 1982 Order is as follows:
Supply of Scheduled Commodities: (1) No person shall obtain any scheduled commodities on a family card unless he (i) registers himself with an authorised dealer; and (ii) complies with any other directions which may be issued on behalf by the Government, (Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection), the Collector, the Authorised Officer, or the Inspecting Officer as the case may be:
The Authorised dealer with whom the Family Card is registered shall on production of such card by the holder, make necessary entries in the card and supply the scheduled commodities not exceeding the quantities for which he is eligible;
The Authorised dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities against any Family Card not registered with him or to non-card holder; and
No person shall purchase any scheduled commodity obtained on a Family Card
According to Rule 8(1) of the Rule this will apply only to a dealer other than a retail dealer. It is not established anywhere that the Petitioner is a dealer and it is also not established that he is a wholesale dealer for the essential commodities. One of the essential conditions for the applicability of Rule 8(1) of the 1984 Order is that the person from whom the goods were seized must be a dealer other than a retail dealer and there is also no evidence to show that the Petitioner is wholesale dealer.'' In the order of confiscation issued by the second Respondent, except the statement that there is a violation of Rule 8(1) of the 1984 Order there is no material to show that the Petitioner is a dealer other than a retail dealer. It is curious to note that there is no Finding in the order that the Petitioner is a dealer. So in the absence of any evidence to show that the Petitioner is a dealer other than the retail dealer, 1984 Order, the provisions of Rule 8(1) are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In so far as the violation of Rule 6(1) to (4) of the 1982 Order is concerned, in the, order of confiscation passed by the second Respondent, he has stated that the Petitioner has purchased the rice and sugar at a lower price from persons dealing in sugar and rice which were meant for distribution under the said provisions, I am of the view that the second Respondent has to record his finding on the said violation. There is no finding or material for him to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has purchased rice and sugar at a lower price and the articles purchased by him were meant for distribution to card-holders. Further had second Respondent some materials to establish the charge he should have furnished at least substance of the materials to the writ Petitioner before he comes to the conclusion that the writ Petitioner has purchased rice and sugar meant for card-holders at a lower price and sold them at a higher price. First of all there are no materials disclosed in the order and even assuming there were materials without communicating the materials substance to the Petitioner, the second Respondent has passed an order holding there was violations of Rule 6(1) to (4) of 1982 order. Since the Respondents have not established the violation of either of 8(1) of the 1984 order or 6(1) to (4) of 1982 order, the order of confiscation passed by the second Respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The order passed by the first Respondent confirming the order of confiscation is also liable to be set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 26149 of 1990 is closed.