IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.12993 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
CARGILL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT INDIRA ARCADE, NO.6/81 & 11/6 2ND FLOOR, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD OPP YAMAHA SHOW ROOM PRAKASHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560021 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.111 RECTANGLE-I, DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017 REP. BY ITS TERRITORY SALES OFFICER MR CHIDANANDAPPA. … PETITIONER (BY MR. B.C. THIRUVENGADAM, ADV.) AND:
1. DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, P.B. NO.175 BANGALORE-560052 REP. BY INSPECTOR FLYING SQUAD.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-52 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SEIZURE EFFECTED ON 2.3.2012 VIDE ANNX-D. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO RELEASE OF THE SEIZED GOODS OF THE PETITIONER DT.2.3.2013 VIDE ANNX-D & FURTHER SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED MAHAZAR DT.2.3.2013 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.B.C.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of seizure effected on 02.03.2013. A Bench of this Court, by an ad interim order dated 19.03.2013, had directed the respondent No.1 to release the commodities seized by it pursuant to the order at Annexure-D subject to the petitioner filing an affidavit before respondent No.1 stating that in case the seizure order is upheld, it will pay penalty as may be assessed by the Court / authority as the case may be.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to conduct an enquiry, if so advised, in accordance with law in pursuance of the seizure. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to conduct an enquiry in pursuance of the seizure in question, if so advised, in accordance with law within a period of three months from today.
Sd/- JUDGE RV