Madras-5.2.The Collector of Thanjavur, Thanjavur.3.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Mayiladuthurai v. M.S.sivakadacham

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 29.01.2007Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Appeal No.1372 of 20021.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Ezhilagam, Madras-5.

The Collector of Thanjavur, Thanjavur.

The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Mayiladuthurai. ... AppellantsVs.M.S.sivakadacham ... RespondentWrit appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order of this Court dated 02.09.1998 made inW.P.No.9243 of 1989. Writ of certiorari calling for the recordson the file of first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.566 dated 15.4.1988 in pursuant to the order of the second respondent in his proceedingsM.R.201/89, No.6, dated 17.12.1987 and quash the order of the first respondent. For Appellants : Mr.K.Elango, Special Government PleaderFor respondent : No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated02.09.1998 made in W.P.No.9243 of 1989, the respondents in the writ petition have filed the above writ appeal.2. The respondent herein-writ petitioner, though duly served notice in this appeal, has not chosen to contest the same by engaging a counsel.3. Heard Mr.K.Elango, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants.

Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Ezhilagam, Madras-5, dated 15.04.1988 in G.O.Ms.No.566, the respondent herein has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.9243 of 1989 before this Court. BY an order dated 02.09.1998, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Governmentand also directed the Government to refund the fine amount ofRs.1000/- with 12% interest per annum within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order by way of draft or cash.

The learned Special Government Pleader has brought to our notice the order passed by the Government, which clearly shows that the Government, after considering the relevant materials and after satisfying that there is no valid ground to interfere with the order of the Collector, has dismissed the appeal filed by the writ petitioner. The order further shows that on 08.07.1987 at 5.00a.m., the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, CID., Mayiladuthuraiand his party while on patrol duty for detecting the illicit carriage of paddy from Thanjavur District has seized the lorry bearing registration No.TNK 1104 with 160 paddy bags. Duringenquiry, one Pichairaj, Accountant of the petitioner showed the bill book and informed the Officers that the paddy belonged to the petitioner. The third appellant-Inspector of Police verified the purchase bills, which were erased and corrected and he suspected that the wholesale dealer had attempted to purchase paddy and sell the same without paying any levy to the Government. Therefore, the third appellant seized the lorry and 160 paddy bags and registered a case in Crime No64/87 under Clause 19(1) of TamilNadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 read with Section 7(1`)(a)(iii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955(Central Act 10 of 1955) and he sent a report to the second appellant for taking further action under Section 6A of Essential https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commodities Act, 1955. After enquiry, as the offence was proved beyond doubt, the Collector, Thanjavur, has ordered for confiscation of the seized 160 paddy bags and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- on the lorry owner.

Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Thanjavur, the respondent herein/writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Government and the Government, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and after perusing the material records, has confirmed the orders of the Collector, Thanjavur in G.O.Ms. No.566, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 15.04.1988. The Governmentorder further shows that the copy of the bill book contains the overwritten details about the date, name, place of the seller, quantity and value of the paddy purchased. The Government had also arrived at a conclusion that the very same bill has been used several times and transported paddy by evading levy payable to the Government. All the above mentioned relevant aspects have been duly considered by the Government. The Government, after finding that there is no valid ground for interference, has rightly dismissed the appeal. While such is the position, the learned single Judge, without going into the relevant aspects and the gravity of the offence and without assigning any reason, has setaside the order of the Government and allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent.

In the light of the above materials, which we have discussed, we are unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. On the other hand, we are satisfied that after affording reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner, the order was passed by the original authority, viz., Collector, Thanjavur, and the same was confirmed by the Government based on the acceptable relevant materials.