Judgment :- Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 17-3-1993 on the file of the 1st respondent herein pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in F1/41516/91 dated 30-8-1991 and to quash to G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 17-3-1993 and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioners herein have filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material a legations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as seen from the affidavit are as follows : The 1st petitioner is the registered owner of the Lorry bearing registration number TN 74/0063 and the same being used as a public carrier. The 2nd petitioner is a wholesale dealer in Paddy and rice possessing licence in KEDL No. 12/86/87 and carrying on business at Vanniyankode, Parasala, Trivandrum District, Kerala, as per the condition of the licence without any adverse remarks. The 2nd petitioner is a wholesale dealer in Paddy and rice possessing licence in KEDL No. 12/86/87 and carrying on business at Vanniyankode, Parasala, Trivandrum District, Kerala, as per the condition of the licence without any adverse remarks. As per the order placed by M/s. Ladma Traders of Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, the 2nd petitioner had sold 161 bags of paddy under Invoice No. 1 dated 20-5-1991 and delivery note bearing No. 71751 dated 20-5-1991 and engaged the 1st petitioner's lorry to transport the abovesaid paddy bags on payment of hire charges. At the request of the 2nd petitioner, his driver loaded the paddy bags and proceedings to Radhapuram. On the way the vehicle was intercepted by the 3rd respondent near Marthandam junction and effected seizure of the vehicle and paddy bags and registered a case in Crime No. 61/91 of the TNETA (RT) Order 1984 and under clause 3 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Procurement Levy) Order read with S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act, 1955 and detained the vehicle under his custody. On knowing the seizure the first petitioner herein filed a petition before the 2nd respondent for release of his lorry and the request was rejected and he has filed a petition before the Govt. and the Government in their Letter No. 51915/G1/91-1 dated 28-8-1991 ordered for release of the vehicle on furnishing immovable property security and as directed by the Government he has furnished immovable property security and the vehicle has been released to him. The 2nd petitioner also filed claim petition for release of the paddy bags but no order was passed and the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under the E.C. Act, 1955 and without considering the written explanation and other relevant and particulars placed before him passed an order confiscating entire paddy bags and imposed a fine of Rs. 30,276/- in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioners after receiving the order passed by the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the Government under S. 6(c) of the E.C. Act by raising various legal grounds to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The above appeal was filed on 21-10-91 and the 1st respondent admitted the appeal and stayed the fine amount imposed to the lorry pending appeal. The above appeal was filed on 21-10-91 and the 1st respondent admitted the appeal and stayed the fine amount imposed to the lorry pending appeal. The above appeal was not disposed of and only after filing a writ, this Court directed the authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within 8 weeks and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed reducing the fine to Rs. 20,000/- and confirmed the order of confiscation and issued G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 17-3-1993. According to the petitioners the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to fix-rehearing of the appeal since the same was heard by his predecessor and orders were reserved and the 1st respondent has passed the erroneous order without assigning proper reasons and the grounds raised in the appeal. Therefore it is contended by the petitioner that the order of the 1st respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction and hence this writ petition. 6. Therefore it is contended by the petitioner that the order of the 1st respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction and hence this writ petition. 6. Challenging the order impugned in this writ petition it is contended by the writ petitioners that even though the petitioners requested the 2nd respondent to grant an opportunity to cross-examine the mahazar witnesses for the purpose of proving the place of the seizure, without granting the petitioner's request the impugned order has been passed which is in clear violation of principle of natural justice, that the 3rd respondent has failed to follow clause 27(1) of the TNETA (RT) order and has not recorded reason to believe and failure to follow the procedure vitiates the entire proceedings and seizure and confiscation is illegal and that the 3rd respondent to substantiate the place of the seizure has not prepared any sketch indicating the distance between the two district borders or other state boundaries either in the seizure report or in the mahazar, and also that the presumption the vehicle being attempted to transport paddy bags to Kerala State is on mere surmise and without any proof, it is also contended by the petitioner that the contravention as alleged in the show cause notice has no application in warranting the authority to confiscate the entire commodity since the impugned order is not subject to 50% levy under the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Procurement Levy) Order 1984 and the contravention of clause 3 of the said order has no application since the Kerala dealer is possessing valid licences issued by the Government and the contravention has no application in warranting the 2nd respondent to order for confiscation of the paddy bags which are covered under proper document and confiscation is illegal. Inter alia it is also contended by the petitioners that the authorities if they have any doubt about the quality of the commodity they have to done quality test on drawing samples from the paddy bags as per the circular of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and without being done any quality test to find out the origin of the paddy and conclusion arrived by the 2nd respondent is imaginary and against the provisions of the EC Act and the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. 7. Per contra, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents inter alia it is contended by the respondents that the consignment with lorry was a seized when it was illicitly transported towards Kerala without any valid records and this was also admitted by the driver and cleaner of the lorry. It is also their case that when the lorry came towards Kerala it was signaled to stop for checking at Thucklai. The driver did not stop the lorry and after chasing the lorry it was intercepted at Marthandam junction and since the consignment in the lorry was not covered by any valid bill, permit, levy clearance certificate, the lorry with paddy was seized and case was registered. Further it is also contended by them that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as provided under Section 6-A of the EC Act for the contravention of clause (i) of the Order, 1981 and after examining the case in detail and perusing the material record of this case it was held proved that the petitioners have contravened clause 3 of the Order and hence the entire seizure of paddy and the vehicle was confiscated to Government as provided in Section 6A of the EC Act. The also said that the documents referred by petitioners are cooked up subsequently only to cover up the illegal dealings. The order was not passed on suspicion as alleged by the petitioner. Further when passed final orders by the Government on the appeal in G.O.Ms. No. 246, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection dated 17-3-93 the petitioner has to remit Rs. 20,000/- to Government and hence he was directed to remit Rs. 20,000/- to Government and hence he was directed to remit the fine amount to Government. 8. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of this case and also from the claims and counter-claims made by this Court, the following are the admitted facts in this case. The consignment with lorry was seized when it was illicitly transported towards Kerala without any valid records. This factum has been admitted by the driver and the cleaner of the lorry. The consignment with lorry was seized when it was illicitly transported towards Kerala without any valid records. This factum has been admitted by the driver and the cleaner of the lorry. That apart the lorry with load was not seized on its way to Radhapuram in Tirunelveli District as contended by the petitioners but when the lorry came towards Kerala it was signalled to stop the lorry for checking at Thuchali, but the driver did not stop the lorry and only after chasing the lorry it was intercepted at Marthandam junction. Further since the consignment in the lorry was not covered by any valid bill, permit, levy clearance certificate, the lorry with paddy was seized and registered a case. Further it is also made clear in this writ petition that the order of confiscation passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent are based on the material records and facts of the case and that the order was passed only after issuing show cause notice and getting their explanations as provided under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act and after giving opportunity of personal hearing as provided under Section 6(B)(C) of the Essential Commodities Act. Thus it is the strong contention of the respondents that the impugned order in this case is legally correct and has met the ends of justice and it was passed only after observing all the formalities under the laws in force. Thus it is clear that the vehicle is used for illicit transport of paddy with the knowledge of the owner or the driver as his agent and the involvement of the lorry in this case has been proved beyond doubt. It is also significant to note that as per the provisions under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act and based on the subjective satisfaction with the materials placed before him, the confiscating authority can pass orders and in this case it has been clearly proved beyond doubt that the petitioners have violated provisions of clauses 4, 8, 10 of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order and clause 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Procurement (Levy) Order which warranted confiscation of the seized property under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act and a such the order passed in this case is legally correct as per law. Therefore in the above facts and circumstances of the case, I see every merit in the contentions raised by the respondents justifying the order impugned in this writ petition. 9. Therefore for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the clear view that the petitioners herein have failed to make out any case in their favour and that therefore there is no need for any interference with the order impugned in this writ petition. Thus the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. M.P. No. 12874/93 also is dismissed. Petition dismissed.