S. Karunakaran and Others vs Ex Officio Secretary to Government Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Fort, St. George, Madras -9. and Others

K. Narayana Kurup, J.—This Writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support

''thereof the order of the High Court, dated 9.3.93. and made herein and the Counter and Reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to

the order in G.O.Ms. No. 311 dated 22.6.1992 on the file of the 1st Respondent Comprised in the return of the respondents to the Writ made by

the High Court, and upon -hearing the arguments of. The Court made the following order : -

The orders of confiscation passed against the petitioners herein are under challenge in this writ petition. Initially, confiscation was ordered by the

second respondent District Collector of South Arcot District for the irregularity of transporting 130 bags, of rice from Periakolliyur Village in South

Arcot District to Salem District in violation of the prohibition of inter district transportation contained in Clause 4(1) and 8(1) of Tamil Nadu

Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) order 1984, which was confirmed in appeal by the first respondent.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the orders impugned in this writ

petition cannot be legally sustained. Of course, there is prohibition of transportation of rice from one District to another namely, South Arcot to

salem. But then, it has to be remembered that the seizure in question was made while the vehicle Was still within South Arcot District at-Indili

Village, more importantly 20 Kms away from Salem District Boarder Check Post, attracting the principle of locus penetentlae, in which event there

is every likelihood of the petitioners changing the TV minds at any time between the place of seizure and the District boundary. The place of seizure

at Indili Village within south Arcot District is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, applying the aforesaid principle of locus penetentiae, the

petitioners cannot be said to have committed any violation of the Control Orders in question vide decision of the Supreme Court in Nasu Sheikh

and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, . Consequently, the impugned orders of confiscation are to be set aside.

Accordingly, I allow this writ petition, quash the orders impugned herein and direct that the sale proceeds of 130 bags of rice as also the around

of Rs 10,000 realised from the petitioners towards fine in lieu of confiscation of lorry from the first- petitioner be refunded forthwith, with

reasonable interest, from the date of seizure till disbursement, No costs.