Judgement This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to set aside, quash the seizure of the articles vide Annexure-I and also subsequent confiscation of the same by the Collector, Cachar at Silchar on 17-11-86 vide Annexure4 and also to quash the appellate order dated 21-9-87 vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. The brief facts are as follows: That the petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society. The petitioner co-operative, society deals in essential commodities such as rice, sugar etc. for the purpose of distribution to its members. On 4-7-86 the petitioner society lifted 261 quintals of rice from stated godown at Silchar. At 4 p.m. of that day, the Sub-Inspector of Supply visited the Co-operative Society. He found 174.36 quintals of rice and 13 quintals of sugar in the Godown of the society. Further, the society failed to produce the books of account for verification by the Inspector. The number of quantities of goods were seized by the Inspector for the violation of the Clauses under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. This seizure was done vide Annexure-I. Thereafter a show-cause was issued on 3-9-86 by the Collector, Cachar. The show cause is for violation of Clause 31(a) of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order 1982 for violation of Clauses 14 and 11 of the Assam Public Distribution Articles, Order, 1982. This show cause is annexure-2 to the writ application. The petitioner submitted a reply vide Annexure-3. The Collector, Cachar on enquiry found that the reply was not acceptable and the petitioner failed to convince the authority. The petitioner was found guilty for violating the provisions of Clause 31 (a) of the Assam Public Distribution Article Order, 1982 and the Collector ordered for confiscation of the seized articles to the State. This order is Annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government and the State Government by its order dated 21-9-87 dismissed the appeal. Hence this application. 2. Clauses 11, 14 and 31(a) of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 are as follows: "Clause-11 :- No appointed dealer who has been appointed as sub-wholesaler shall issue or sell any quantity of notified articles to any customer excepting to the retailers appointed and attached to his shop by the Licensing Authority. Hence this application. 2. Clauses 11, 14 and 31(a) of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 are as follows: "Clause-11 :- No appointed dealer who has been appointed as sub-wholesaler shall issue or sell any quantity of notified articles to any customer excepting to the retailers appointed and attached to his shop by the Licensing Authority. Clause-14:- No holder of a licence issued under this order or his agent or servant of any person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms, and conditions of the licence. Clause-31:- The Licensing Authority or any Executive Magistrate or Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any Sub-Deputy Collector or any officer of the Food and Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of sub-Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies or other officer of the State Government not below in rank of a Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies and authorised by the State Government in this behalf, within his jurisdiction, may with a view to securing the compliance of this order or to satisfy himself that this order has been complied with, with such assistance, if any, as he thinks fit. (a) require the owner, occupier or any other person in charge of any place, premises, vehicles or vessel in which he has reasons to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order has been or is being or if about to be made, to produce any books of accounts or documents showing transaction relating to such contravention." 3. The contentions of the petitioner are that they have not violated any of this clauses. Their main contention is in paragraph 15 of the writ application wherein it is stated as follows:- "The petitioner (sic) state that the main offence for which the present proceeding is drawn is in respect of the occurrence dated 4-7-86. On that day it is alleged that the society in the early hours lifted 261. quintals of rice and at 4 p.m. in the evening only 174.36 quintals of rice were found in the godown of the society and it is alleged that the society failed to explain 86.64 quintals of balance has violated clause 31(a) of the Public Distribution Order. quintals of rice and at 4 p.m. in the evening only 174.36 quintals of rice were found in the godown of the society and it is alleged that the society failed to explain 86.64 quintals of balance has violated clause 31(a) of the Public Distribution Order. On the other hand the Societys case is that another truck carrying 86.64 quintals of rice was on the way to society from the stated godown and by 4 p.m. of the day, it did not reach the godown because the truck was held up due to road blocking and the balance rice reached the society godown at 8 p.m. in the night. The society has books of accounts showing that 86.64 quintals of rice reached them by 8 p.m. in the night and later they were distributed to the different consumers through retailers and as such the lifting matter having arisen on the same day and the search and seizure by the authorities within such a short period of time is extremely harsh and arbitrary and the same is not in accordance with law and the search and seizure having effected without giving opportunity to the society to explain balance 86.64 quintals and as such the action of the authority is mala fide." 4. I have heard Shri M. A. Laskar, Learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed nor any record has been produced . 5. Annexure-I dated 4-7-86 is the ground of seizure as mentioned in this memo is as follows: "Non production of any accounts in support of receipt and disposal." 6. The show-cause is dated 3-9-86. The irregularities as indicated in the Annexure are as follows: i) That, as per stated record you have lifted 261.00 quintals of rice on 4-7-86. But during the visit of F and C. S. Inspecting staff on 4-7-86 at about 4.30 p.m. they found only 174-36 qtls. of rice in your godown at Rongpur. Thus a discrepancy of 86.64 quintals of rice was discovered by them. ii) That, no stock Register/ Sale register and cash memo books etc. could be produced by you on duty salesman Sri Jamal Uddin Laskar contravening the clause 31(a) of the APDA Order, 1982. of rice in your godown at Rongpur. Thus a discrepancy of 86.64 quintals of rice was discovered by them. ii) That, no stock Register/ Sale register and cash memo books etc. could be produced by you on duty salesman Sri Jamal Uddin Laskar contravening the clause 31(a) of the APDA Order, 1982. iii) That you have shown false issue of notified article from the period from April, 1986 to June, 1986 against the names if the retailers of Sarvashree (a) Hafizur Rahman rice 29.00 qtls. Sugar, 4.60 qtls. and salt 1. Bag (b) Kurman Ali Laskar rice 11.50 qtls. and Sugar 1.25 qntls. (c) Manindra Ch. Dey Rice 20.00 qtls. and Sugar 2.00 qntls. (e) Abdul Jalil Laskar rice 13.00 qtls. Sugar 1.00 qtls. (f) Bipul Chakravarty Rice 16.00 qtls. Sugar 2.45 qtls (g) Noor Ahmed rice 7.00 qtls. sugar 1.25 qtls. (h) Faizul Haque Barbhuiya rice 7.00 qtls. Subar 2.50 qtls. (i) Amulya Deb Rice 4.00 qtls. (k) Kaushik Dey Rice 8.00 qtls. (1)Sunahar Ali Choudhury rice 54,00 qtls. sugar 6.00 qtls. (m) Nasir Uddin rice 23.90 qtls. sugar 1.39 qtls and salt 2 bags (n) Khindra Deb Rice 12.00 qtls. Sugar 1.00 qtls. (o) Sambool Lal Deb Rice 5.00 qtls. (p) Meghnath Nunia rice 36,00 qtls sugar 4.30 qtls, (q) Santosh Paul rice 28.00 qtls. Sugar 3.00 qtls. (r) Ahmed Ali rice 43.60 qtls, sugar 5.00 qtls. (iv) The signatures of most of the retailers obtained in the cash memo books, at the time of issue of notified articles do not tally with the signatures obtained in the identity books of the retailer. 7. In reply vide Annexure 3 it is stated inter alia as follows:- "The salesman of the society conducts the sale of all commodities and he was instructed to issue all essential commodities through Identity Books of Retailer, but now it is seen that, these instructions have not been followed by him strictly. It happens sometimes that some of the agents occasionally either come personally or send a representatives to taking delivery of goods for-getting to bring the identity book. On their approach salesman issued goods on assurance to get these entered subsequently, but missed the same through oversight. However the salesman has been cautioned not to issue any commodities when the matter was first brought to the notice of the society by S. O. some days back. On their approach salesman issued goods on assurance to get these entered subsequently, but missed the same through oversight. However the salesman has been cautioned not to issue any commodities when the matter was first brought to the notice of the society by S. O. some days back. The management will be moved to take necessary action against the salesman for his such negligence". 8. The findings of the Collector in Annexure-4 are inter alia as follows:- (a) No stock register/sales register and cash memo book etc. could be produced by the Salesman on duty, which is a contravention of clause 31 (a) of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. (c) The co-operative society had shown a false issue of notified articles for the period from April 86 to June, 86 against several retailers. The signatures of most of these retailers obtained in the cash memo books at the time of issue does not tally with the signatures obtained in the identity books of the retailers. The commodities shown issued to these retailers as mentioned in the show cause notice have not been received by them. Of these retailers, 8 retailers have given a declaration in writing that they did not lift the notified articles from the co-operative society. From the above it is evident that the various clauses of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 have been violated by the second party. The seized commodities may hence be confiscated by the State in case they have been disposed of as an interim measure the sale proceeds be forfeited to the State. 9. On appeal, the State Government found as follows:- "The rice and sugar received in the stock book for the year 1986-76 the first party was made on 4-7-86. But this stock book and cash memo books and purchase books were not demanded by the supply officer nor it is seized. The collector in his parawise comment said that illegal activities of the society is proved by all cash memo of different retailers of the society from the month of April, 1986 to June, 1986. The cash memos issued really proved misappropriation of the commodities by the society by maintaining false account. The collector in his parawise comment said that illegal activities of the society is proved by all cash memo of different retailers of the society from the month of April, 1986 to June, 1986. The cash memos issued really proved misappropriation of the commodities by the society by maintaining false account. On being questioned, the retailer denied receiving the articles shown against their names by the G.P.S.S. The contention of the appellant for non-maintenance of up-to-date account and the reasons given cannot be accepted. It is seen from the show cause notice and reply that the Secretary has admitted this in his reply and tried to shift the responsibilities to the salesman. Under the terms and conditions of the licence issued under Assam Public Distribution and Articles Order, 1982, it is obligatory on the part of the office bearer of the society to produce accounts etc. also give facilities to the inspecting staff at all reasonable times for verification of stocks. The collector further said in the parawise comment that the statement made by the appellant in his appeal petition that balance of 86, 64 quintals of rice was there in the godown on 5-7-86 is not correct. As the rice and sugar are perishable commodities the collector passed the orders of disposal of seized commodities and accordingly the supply officer sold the rice and sugar to the retailers of the G.P.S.S. The Collector further said that it is not true that the supply officer was present during the sale of 86.64 quintals of rice by the society. The collector further denied the statement of the appellant that the (sic) personal hearing is not given to the appellant. Personal hearing was fixed on 25-10-86 and 17-11-86. On 25-10-86 the appellant sought adjournment on medical ground. On the latter date the appellant neither appeared nor took any step. As such the collector had to take up and judge the case ex parte." 10. From the above, it is crystal clear that as a fact it was found that the petitioner society violated the provisions of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Orders, 1982. All these are findings of facts and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application accordingly, the same is dismissed. 12. All these are findings of facts and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application accordingly, the same is dismissed. 12. I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.