IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.3916 OF 2004 (GM-EC) BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE FOOD INSPECTOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MADIWALA POLICE STATION, MADIWALA.
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND:
M/S. CHAMUNDI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS 7TH MILE, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 068, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI MAHENDER KUMAR GUPTA.
(BY SRI DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR ... APPELLANTS ... RESPONDENT SRI K. SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.26823 OF 2004 DATED 28.07.2004 AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The respondent claims to be a miller carrying on the business of Maida, Sooji, Atta, etc., ever since 1973. That on 21-5-2004, respondents 3 and 4 along with their officials intercepted the godown of the petitioner and seized the wheat therein. In addition to seizure of the wheat at the godown, 7 lorries which were parked within the premises were also seized. They contained wheat in all to an extent of about 7888.15 quintals. A Mahazar was drawn. A show cause notice was issued as to why the wheat should not be confiscated under the provisions of the Essential commodities Act, 1955. Thereafter writ petition No.21840 of 2004 was filed before this Court challenging the show cause notice issued by the respondents. The petition was allowed and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider the reply of the petitioner on merits. With regard to the initiation of proceedings, once again the petitioner filed writ petition No. 24688 of 2004. By the order dated 23-6-2004 this Court disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents to complete the investigation and the enquiry on or before 15th July, 2004 and permitted the respondents to distribute the wheat contained in 7 lorries under the Public Distribution System subject to the State making good the value to the petitioner in the event of his success in the litigation. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, was maintainable. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition was filed. By the order dated 28-7-2004 the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside. Challenging the same, the State filed writ appeal 3916 of 2004. By the order dated 13th September 2004, in view of the submission made by the respondents that they have already taken possession of the commodities, the Court was of the view that it cannot go into the issues only for academic purposes. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as being infructuous. Questioning the same, the State preferred SLP No.26128 of 2005. By the order dated 10-11-2006 the SLP was allowed. The order passed by the appellate Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry by the appellate Court.
2. We have heard learned counsels on merits.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that there is no violation of Clause-18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 and therefore the proceedings initiated by the appellants before the Deputy Commissioner are not maintainable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that there is no necessity to record a finding. Having considered the contentions as well as the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for.
3. We have considered the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent herein was also directed by the Deputy Commissioner to produce the documents for the purpose of enquiry. The same were required in order to ascertain the correct conclusion as to whether the wheat was for Public Distribution System and whether it is appropriate to maintain the books of account and the matters of like nature. Therefore, the said order would necessarily have to be considered as a show cause notice asking him to produce the documents. Rather than doing so, the second writ petition was filed. This we find erroneous. It is only on the submission of the relevant documents before the respondent - Deputy Commissioner, that he would be in a position to ascertain as to whether there has been any violation of Clause 18 of the Food Control Order and the Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 or not. In the absence of any documentation, for the learned Single Judge to come to the conclusion that there is infraction of law, in our considered view is inappropriate. The findings of fact can be recorded only if the relevant material has been produced and considered. In the instant case, the impugned order demanded production of certain documents. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondent should produce the relevant documents before the appellants. That the appellants shall consider the same and thereafter record a finding on facts including the maintainability of the proceedings before him.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 28-7-2004 passed in writ petition No.26823 of 2004 is set aside. The respondent is directed to comply with the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 2-7-2004 vide Annexure- L(annexed to writ petition), while producing the relevant documents before the Deputy Commissioner for the enquiry. On considering the said documents, the Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders including on the question of maintainability of the proceedings before him based on the documents produced.
At the request of the respondent, he is granted three months time to produce the said documents.
Writ appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-