Judgment :- An order passed by the District Collector, Kottayam dated 31-5-1997 (Ext.P3) which was confirmed by the Government on 8-9-1997 by Ext.P4 requires the petitioner, who is the registered owner of lorry bearing No.KL-7E-2579, either to surrender the vehicle to the Government as one confiscated, or at his option to pay cost of the boiled rice carried by the vehicle at the time as penalty. These orders are under challenge. 2. Petitioner is the son of an authorized wholesale dealer Mr. V. Thangiah who was having his business premises at Nadumkandam. On instructions of the rationed dealer, he had lent his lorry for the purpose of carrying a load of rice from Food Corporation godown, Chingavanam to Kattappana. However, on the date of incident that is 19-4-1997, the District Supply Officer had intercepted the lorry, at about 1 P.M., on a suspicion of malpractice. According to the officer, the lorry was traveling deviating from the normal route and as could be gatherable from the documents, in just opposite direction. He had reported to the District Collector about the incident. Case had been registered and the lorry had been released in favour of the registered owner. The explanation furnished by the transporter and the Ration Dealer was not convincing and in the circumstances, in exercise of powers under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, a penalty was imposed. A lenient view had been taken, whereby he could have remitted the price of articles which were clandestinely found as loaded in his vehicle. 3. The petitioner submits that if the respondents were not convinced about the explanation, an enquiry ought to have been carried out so as to ascertain and notice the veracity of the contentions that had been raised. It is also submitted that there was nothing like a pre-notified route and the route prescribed was only for the purpose of reimbursement of lorry charges viz., the shortest route. This has been misconstrued as a restrictive condition and also the basis for presumption that there was unauthorized attempt for transportation of the articles. 4. Learned Government Pleader was also heard in the matter. This has been misconstrued as a restrictive condition and also the basis for presumption that there was unauthorized attempt for transportation of the articles. 4. Learned Government Pleader was also heard in the matter. It is submitted that the argument about Ext.P2 may not be sustainable and it was one of the conditions imposed upon the rationed dealers that they were supposed to take rationed articles through the prescribed route and the deviation should not have been acceptable for any reasons. It is further submitted that the procedure prescribed by Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act had been fully satisfied. Opportunity had been given to participate in the proceedings. As prescribed by the proviso, it would have been possible for the petitioner to pay up a fine and get the lorry released as a measure, which would have been advantageous. 5. Since the issue had been satisfactorily decided by the District Collector, and as the Appellate Authority-Government has also examined the matter at length, I do not find any patent irregularity or illegality is there in the approach. I find it difficult to accept the contentions of the petitioner that Exts.P3 and P4 require to be set aside. 6. So as to ensure that rationed commodities are not smuggled out or diverted by unscrupulous dealers, precautionary measures will have to be employed, and inspection arranged. The explanations submitted when aberrations are detected have to be subjected to strict proof, and in fact the burden lies on the delinquent. At least on certain occasions, circumstances may speak for themselves. This appears to be one such instance. Opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner to explain the circumstances that were found against him, and this sub serves principles of fair play. It will be unjust on the part of the Court to entertain hyper technical argument or quash the order of the executive authorities, interfering with enforcement of law. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Original Petition is dismissed.