M. Krishnappa vs Chief Officer on 23 February, 1993
In T. Kallappa and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and Ors., the facts are these:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)Chandeshwar Mahto And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 10 January, 1977
The intention of providing the issuance of any show cause notice under Section 6B is with a definite purpose; the purpose being to enable the authority to see as to whether there has been a contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Act or not, and with that end in view, a regular representation and hearing has been provided for. Therefore, where a person from whose possession such a property has been seized, has id essence no cause to show on the merits, as in the present case, where it was simply stated by him that he had no concern with the property and the persons, concerned were different and he informed the authority concerned as to who are the alleged owners of the commodity, then in that situation, that is, where a person from whom any essential commodity is seized, pleads no concern with the commodity asserts to be simply a custodian and the real owners are disclosed to the authority, who is to hold the inquiry, their in that situation, in our opinion, it is desirable to issue show cause notice to such persons, namely, the alleged owners of the essential commodity, before any actual order of confiscation is made. Taking any other view would be doing simply an empty formality in the matter and the scheme of these provisions substituted by the amendment would be rendered meaningless. We find support for our view from a Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of T.R. Ramaiah and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga district and Anr. There from a rice mill, 2307 bags of paddy were seized which belonged to the second respondent of that case. Notice was, however, issued to the second respondent, i.e., the mill owner, as in the case before us. In response to the notice, the mill owner stated that the paddy bags in question belongea to different persons, namely, the appellants before the High Court in whom the ownership of the stock vested. According to the definite case of me second respondent, namely, the mill-owner, the paddy in question was delivered, by the appellants for the purpose of hulling. The Deputy Commissioner of Chitradurga district, the authority empowerd to adjudicate confiscation, however, did not issue any notice to the appellants and passed the order of confiscation. The order was challenged under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the High Court set side the order and held that when the proprietor of the mill disclaimed all ownership to the paddy seized and put torwaro a definite case that it belonged to the appellants and the fact that the appellants had already claimed to be the owners of the paddy in question, no order of confiscation could have been made in such a situation without affording an opportunity to the appellants to show cause as to why the paddy should not be confiscated. The facts of that case are very much similar to the facts and circumstances of the case before us. We would like to make it clear that we do not propose to lay down that in every case where the person from whose possession any essential commodity is seized, disowns ownership of the same, it would be obligatory on the authority to find out the real owners of the said property by holding any inquiry or otherwise before he could pass any final order in the matter.
The Davanagere Urban Co Operative Bank ... vs Kumari Ramya on 11 November, 2010
"In tIdis""i:iei'2alf, the counsel appearing for the
rely upon the decision rendered by this
in of TR. Ramaiah And Others vs. Deputy
"*1
9
Commissiorier Arid Anr. -- Kar.L.J. 1974 (2) KL.) page 305,
wherein this court has observed as under:
"It is well settled iaw that there is no rule
regard to certiorari as there is with rnandauļ¬'ius,.AjVV'
that it will lie only "where there is ' V
equally effective remedy. The
exhaustion of statutory rerriedies tiefore tl'iew;fi't. ''
may be granted, is a mle._ofu..policy,
and discretion rather rule "or
High Court will readily:certiorari"'iriV a
case where there of natural
justice bef_ore_ a coiiit of V ddjiirisciiction
vide State' l\?loh'arrirriad...D:Jdooh (1) and
Venkzictestixsraran . Sobhraj
"
1