AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, praying for a writ of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and that of the appellate authority confirming the said order.
The Inspector of Police (CS CID) Aruppukkottai, while conducting anti-smuggling raid had intercepted a lorry bearing Registration No. TNW 7972 on 28.01.1998 between Paramakudi and Chattirakudi, moving from Ramanthapuram to Madurai, the lorry was carrying 110 bags of wheat.
On questioning, the lorry driver of the vehicle reported, that wheat was procured by one Thiru.Kalidoss at Ramanathapuram on behalf of Jaya Corporation, Madurai, for being transported to Nagalakshmi Flour Mills, Dindigul. The bills were also produced.
It was found that Jaya Corporation has No. license to do wheat business in Ramanathapuram District. Accordingly, lorry along with 110 bags were seized. On the same day, two more lorries with registration Nos. TMT 9064 and TDR 7029 each containing 110 bags of wheat transported by the Corporation to the Nagalakshmi Flour Mills were also seized.
The matter was reported to the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram. On request of the Petitioner, the lorry along with wheat were temporarily released on production of sureties on 08.03.1988 and 15.03.1988 respectively.
The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, conducted an enquiry u/s 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and recorded a finding that the wheat was procured in the black market at Ramanathapuram on the strength of bogus bills and transported to other places to earn undue profit. Accordingly, the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, ordered the confiscation of 330 bags of wheat u/s 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and released three lorries without fine.
Against the confiscation of wheat, P.Jayabalan of M/S. Jeya Corporation, Madurai, preferred an appeal. In the appeal, the only ground taken against the order of the District Revenue Officer, was that the District Revenue Officer, had failed to give adequate opportunity to defend in defending the case.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner challenged the impugned order, by contending that the notice was issued on 17.12.1991 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the date of seizer. The action of the Respondents in not permitting the Petitioner to inspect the records resulted in denial of adequate opportunity, which prejudiced his interest, as it was not possible for the Petitioner to remember the facts as the occurrence had taken place 4 years back.
It is also the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that after number of requests and representations, the Petitioner was offered to inspect the records, but he could not inspect the records for reasons beyond his control. The District Revenue Officer, instead of giving any further opportunity decided to proceed to adjudicate the matter.
On consideration, I find No. force in the contention raised by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as there is No. straight-jacket formula to determine the question of principles of natural justice. Whether the principle of natural justice have been violated or not depends on the facts of each case.
In this case, it is not in dispute that the lorries were seized containing 110 bags of wheat each. It is also not in dispute that it was the Petitioner who get the lorry released after furnishing security by claiming its ownership.
The allegation against the Petitioner was that Jaya Corporation was not having licence to do business of wheat in the area, where the lorries were intercepted.
It was therefore for Petitioner to justify and prove his defence. The Petitioner for the reasons best known to him, chose not to defend the case by inspecting by records, in-spite of opportunities having been provided. Other-wise, also admittedly, the Petitioner is not the proprietor of Jaya Corporation and has filed this writ petition as a Manager, being the son of the proprietor.
Once it is not in dispute that the lorries were intercepted and the Petitioner had got it released on furnishing surety, it was for the Petitioner to prove that necessary documents were available with the Petitioner and to show how the lorries carrying wheat were found in the area of Ramanathapuram. On proved facts it can safely be said that there is No. violation of principles of natural justice.
The only direction issued to the Petitioner is for the enforcement of the surety in view of order of confiscation, in the alternative the Petitioner is to pay the amount of Rs. 69,300/-[Rupees Sixty nine thousand and three hundred only]. No. other point was urged.
Consequently, the petition is ordered to be dismissed. No. costs.