IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.21863 OF 2014 (GM-EC) BETWEEN:
Sethu Sales Corporation, Mandi Merchants and Commission Agents, Sira Road, Pavagada Town, Tumkur District – 572 201. Represented by its Partner Satish. …Petitioner (By H.C.Shivaramu, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur – 572 201.
2. The Thasildar, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 201.
3. Sri. Balaji Industries, Budugumpa Road, Karatagi – 583 229 Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District.
4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pavagada Police Station, Pavagada, Tumkur District – 572 201. … Respondents (By Ms.Niloufer Akbar, AGA for R1, R2 and R4; R3 served) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned Order dated 26.04.2014 passed by the R1 vide Annex-M and also Public Auction Notification dated 08.05.2014 issued by the R2 vide Annex-N and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.4.2014 (Annexure-M) passed by the respondent No.1 and order dated 08.5.2014 (Annexure-N) issued by the respondent No.2.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a businessman registered under the provisions of the Value Added Tax Act. The main business of the petitioner is to purchase the rice from the farmers and supply the same to the commission agency.
3. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 22.01.2014, the District Manager, Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (KFCSC) Gulbarga, by letter dated 14.2.2014 vide Annexure-B, placed a purchase order/indent for supply of common rice under PDS (Public Distribution System) in accordance with the quality and parameters of the terms and conditions made at Head office KFCSC, Bangalore. Pursuant to Annexure-B, Sri Balaji Industries – respondent No.3 has given a purchase confirmation letter to the petitioner by Annexure-C dated 20.02.2014 and requested to supply common raw rice varieties on behalf of respondent No.3. Pursuant to that, petitioner had purchased rice from the farmers and stored the same in the rice mill, transported the rice to supply to respondent No.3 industry through purchase confirmation letter dated 20.2.2014, which was purchased by the petitioner in the APMC directly from the farmers under a valid permit issued by the APMC Authority. The said rice bags were directed to be seized along with lorry and an FIR was registered against the petitioner. The show- cause notice was issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to show cause within seven days as to why action should not be taken to impound the said seized rice in favour of the Government under Section 6A of the Act. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner has given reply along with documents showing that the said rice was purchased by him under transport permit issued by the APMC and transported to respondent No.3 under bill dated 21.2.2014 produced as Annexure-G and requested for releasing of the seized commodities. However, respondent No.1, without considering the reply given by the petitioner along with documents has issued impugned order vide Annexures-M and N. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a businessman registered under the provisions of Value Added Tax Act. The KFCSC has entered an agreement with respondent No.3 as per the G.O. dated 21.2.2014 for supplying of common rice under PDS. Respondent No.3, in turn, has requested the petitioner for supplying the common rice by purchase confirmation letter dated 20.2.2014. Pursuant to that, petitioner was transporting 250 quintals of rice from his premises which is purchased from the farmers through APMC. Respondent No.1, under the wrong impression saying that the rice bags belong to the Government, and that the petitioner was transporting without licence, has seized the product and initiated the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. Hence, the same is unsustainable.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner was transporting the rice bags which are without any licence. Therefore, the Authority has rightly initiated the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. Now the case is pending before the Deputy Commissioner. In the mean time, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court. This Court, by order dated 20.6.2016, has permitted the respondent to auction the seized rice subject to the result of the writ petition. Pursuant to that, the auction has been conducted. Now the proceeding is before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner was transporting 250 quintals of common raw rice which was seized by the Authority and initiated the proceedings under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act since the product is a perishable good, the Authority has issued a notification for auction sale under 6A(ii). The same has been challenged by the petitioner in this case. This Court, by order dated 20.6.2016, permitted respondent Nos.1 and 2 to auction the seized rice which is the subject matter of this writ petition and to deposit the amount in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. Pursuant to the auction notice, the Deputy Commissioner has conducted an auction. There were 7 bidders who had participated in the auction. Among them, petitioner’s price was the highest. Petitioner has purchased 250 quintals of rice at Rs.1520/-
per quintal which comes to Rs.3,80,000/-. The same has been deposited in a nationalized bank. The proceeding initiated under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is pending before the Deputy Commissioner.
8. Since the proceeding invoked under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is pending before respondent No.1, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to conclude the proceedings after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and after considering all the relevant documents produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within eight weeks.
9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 29.01.2019 at 3.00 p.m. On that day, the Deputy Commissioner shall fix next date of hearing and conclude the matter within eight weeks from that date.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
ssd/rv Sd/- JUDGE