M. Arumugam vs The District Revenue Officer, The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. and The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the District Revenue

Officer, Salem/first respondent herein to return 133 bags of rice seized from the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 60 0872, 137 bags of rice each

50 kilos and 23 bags of rice each 100 kilos by the 2nd respondent in Crime No. 165/2002 on 16-7-2002.

On direction, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for respondents.

It is seen from the particulars furnished that the petitioner is a wholesale dealer possessing licence issued under TNETA (RT) Order, 1984 by

the District Supply Officer, Salem. It is stated that the petitioner for his wholesale business used to purchase commodities from the local dealers

and other wholesale dealers of other districts in Tamil Nadu and for the purchases maintaining proper accounts for all the transactions done by the

petitioner in the course of the business. He had purchased rice bags from Bhuvana Stores, which is carrying on business at No. 62, Agraharam

Shevapet, Salem. After purchase of the tender rice, he had sold 100 bags of rice as per Credit Bill No. 40, dated 5-7-2002 to M/s. Sri Maruthi

Rice Industries, Shimoga, Karnataka State and dispatched in a lorry bearing Registration No. TCE 3375 and the remaining rice the petitioner had

sold 133 bags of rice each 75 kilos to M/s. Veerendra Traders Rice Merchants, Shimoga, Karnataka State on 16-7-2002, and the same was also

dispatched through lorry. While so, the second respondent without assigning any reason seized 133 bags of rice from the lorry bearing Registration

No. TN 60 0872 and the remaining bags to an extent of 137 bags 50 kilos and 23 bags 100 kilos from the open yard of the Bye-pass Road and

registered a case in Crime No. 165/2002 for the contravention under clause 4 (1) and 19 (1) read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act and

entrusted the rice bags at T.N.C.S.C. Godown, Salem for custody on 16-7-2002 alleging the rice belonged to Public Distribution rice. After the

seizure, the petitioner has filed a petition before the first respondent for interim custody of the rice bags on proper security but no order was passed

by the first respondent on the petition. Without passing orders on the petition, the first respondent is taking steps to dispose of the rice bags to

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation under Public Distribution system rice. Having no other effective remedy, filed the present writ petition

praying for appropriate direction.

There is no dispute that the matter in issue is now pending before the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Salem. It is also seen that the

second respondent has seized the above mentioned bags of rice even on 16-7-2002. Only at this juncture, the petitioner has filed the present writ

petition. The Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3, by relying a decision of the Apex Court in Shambhu Dayal

Agarwala Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, : would contend that no direction as claimed by the petitioner be granted. The Hon''ble Supreme

Court, while considering Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, has observed that the purpose of conferring power u/s 6-A(2) on

the Collector to sell the seized commodity is to maintain the smooth supplies of essential commodities to the consumer public, avoid artificial

shortages, maintain the price line and to secure equitable distribution thereof through fair price shops. To ensure that this objective of maintaining

supplies and securing equitable distribution of essential commodities is not defeated, the legislature has entrusted the task of the Collector in its

entirety and has ruled out interference by courts, tribunals and other authorities by placing an embargo on their jurisdiction in this behalf by Section

6-E. It is also brought to my notice that following the said decision, this Court in several orders turned down similar requests made by the

petitioners therein.

Taking note of the provisions referred to above and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, I do not find any valid ground to issue

direction as claimed by the petitioner. It is not disputed that even if he succeeds before the concerned authority, he is entitled to get the market

value of the rice seized from him. In such a circumstance, I am of the view that there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner; consequently the writ

petition is dismissed. The first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Salem is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law one way or other, within a period of 3 (Three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,

W.P.M.P. Nos. 846 and 847/2003 are dismissed.