Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Natasha Agro Foods vs The District Collector on 11 April, 2019

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                                                          1

                              THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 11.04.2019

                                                     CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                          W.P.(MD)No.8003 of 2019
                                                        and
                                  W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6306 and 6307 of 2019



                      Natasha Agro Foods
                      registered Firm
                      represented by its
                      Managing Partner
                      J.Syed Sultana Begum                            ... Petitioner

                                                        Vs

                      1.The District Collector,
                        Collectorate Office,
                        Sivagangai District.

                      2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                        Devakottai,
                        Sivagangai District.

                      3.The Regional Manager,
                        Tamilnadu Civil Supply Corporation,
                        Collectorate, Sivagangai.

                      4.The Inspector of Police,
                        Civil Supply CID (Food Cell)
                        Sivagangai.                                   ... Respondents

                      PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                      India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to



http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                          2

                      release 19 tons of rice seized at the instigation of the second
                      respondent and kept in go down of third respondent forthwith
                      under bill of supply invoice No.RIC-0382 dated 22.03.2019.


                              For Petitioner     : M.V.Venkataseshan
                              For R1 and R2      : Mr.M.Karuppasamy
                                                   Government Advocate

                              For R3 and R4      : Mr.D.Maharajan



                                                       ORDER

The petitioner is running a Modern Rice Mill at Puduvayan, Sakkottai. 19 tons of rice, meant for the writ petitioner, were seized from the lorry belonging to the writ petitioner's husband. This seizure was made on 22.03.2019 at about 7.00 p.m. Crime No.31 of 2019 was registered against the lorry driver under Section 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1982 and Section 7(1)(a)(iii) Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The rice samples were sent to the quality inspector who certified that it is belongs to PDS category. The petitioner wants the respondents to return the seized goods. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

http://www.judis.nic.in 3

2.This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

3.It is not in dispute that the investigation is presently going on. Even if the petitioner is found to have breached the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, the goods are going to be confiscated and sold in an auction.

4.This Court posed a specific question to the learned Government Advocate with regard to the value of the property. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it has been mentioned that the seized goods would be worth about Rs.6,07,350/-.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he is willing to give Bank guarantee for the said sum. The Bank guarantee will be valid for a period of four months. If even after four months, the confiscation proceedings if initiated, does not get concluded, the petitioner shall offer immovable property securities. The Bank guarantee can be cancelled at the end of the four months period. Subject to this, the respondents are directed to return the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 seized goods to the petitioner herein.

6.It is admitted by the Investigation Officer that the samples have already been drawn. It is open to the Investigation Officer to conduct the investigation in accordance with law. The order granting release of the goods will not be taken advantage by the writ petitioner in any collateral proceedings. The respondent shall release the goods after the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the aforesaid goods. All other proceedings will independently go on as per law. The defence of the writ petitioner and the rights of the parties are left open.

7.This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.




                                                                    11.04.2019
                      Index    : Yes/No
                      Internet : Yes/No

Note: Issue order copy on 15.04.2019 pnn http://www.judis.nic.in 5 To

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Sivagangai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

3.The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Supply Corporation, Collectorate, Sivagangai.

4.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID (Food Cell) Sivagangai.

http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

pnn W.P.(MD)No.8003 of 2019 11.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in