S.K. Ganesh vs The Deputy Commissioner and The Assistant Director

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondents. He is permitted to file Memo of Appearance within four weeks from today. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.06.2013 which is impugned at Annexure-F to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to respondents No. 1 and 2 to release 220 Qtls. of rice contained in plastic bags which was seized on 01.05.2013.

By the order at Annexure-F, respondent No. 1 has taken a decision to auction the seized rice of 220 Qtls. The petitioner contends that very seizure itself is contrary to law inasmuch as the seized rice was owned by the petitioner having purchased the same by paying licence fee to the RMC Yard. It is therefore contended that if the rice is auctioned as proposed by the respondents, the petitioner would be put to loss. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

Insofar as the contention of the petitioner, the question as to whether the petitioner is actually the owner of the rice having purchased it in the open market or as to whether the allegation as made by the respondents while seizing the materials is correct are all factual aspects which would have to be determined by respondent No. 1 by providing opportunity to the petitioner. Pending consideration, the question is as to whether the respondents should be permitted to auction the seized rice as proposed by the order dated 22.06.2013.

It is needless to mention that the seized material being rice, would loose its quality if the same is not stored by the authorities in an appropriate manner. It is in that circumstance, respondent No. 1 has sought to auction the same. In any event, since determination with regard to ownership of the seized rice is yet to be completed by respondent No. 1, if it is auctioned and if ultimately it is found that the rice was actually purchased by the petitioner, the petitioner would be put to loss. Keeping this aspect in view, I am of the opinion that the decision taken by respondent No. 1 to auction the rice at this juncture would not be sustainable. The order dated 22.06.2013 is therefore quashed. A direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to release 220 Qtls. of rice which had been seized from the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond and also the property documents to the extent of the value of 220 Qtls. of rice to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner. The order to release shall be made by respondent No. 1 immediately on the documents being furnished as security by the petitioner. Thereafter respondent No. 1 shall conclude the entire process relating to the seizure and determination of the status of the seized rice relating to the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of furnishing a copy of this order.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.