Judgment : 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 09.01.2007 impugned at Annexure-H and consequential notice dated 03.09.2009 at Annexure-J to the petition. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a rice mill owned by the partners as per the deed dated 01.04.2005. The petitioner is stated to have leased the mill on 01.09.2007 in favour of M/s.Lakshminarayana Enterprises. The situation leading to the instant proceedings is at a point when the petitioner was running the rice mill, he had stored about 195 Quintals of rice which had been entrusted to the petitioner by one of his customers M/s.Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri. The respondent-authorities while inspecting the premises on finding the said stock had prepared a mahaar dated 17.03.2003 and a show-cause notice dated 26.03.2003 was issued. Subsequently, an order dated 09.01.2007 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner by which the said quantity of rice seized has been forfeited. In pursuance thereof, a notice dated 03.09.2009 at Annexure-J by which the petitioner is aggrieved is issued. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the notice to recover the amounts at Annexure-J are not justified, inasmuch as the very stock of rice to which the respondents refer does not belong to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that though in the year 2003, the stock of rice was in the premises, it was on behalf of M/s.Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri and despite the petitioner having produced the document in that regard, the respondents have not taken any action against the owner of the stock but had continued to take action in respect of the petitioner which is not sustainable. It is therefore contended that the amount as demanded from the petitioner is not justified and even the order impugned at Annexure-H passed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 4. The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is therefore contended that the amount as demanded from the petitioner is not justified and even the order impugned at Annexure-H passed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 4. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The contention put forth is that the quantity of rice which has been seized from the mill of the petitioner was the stock meant for public distribution system and it is in that regard on finding that the petitioner did not have any valid documents to claim the ownership of the stock of rice, action was taken to seize the same and since the stock was kept in the mill belonging to the petitioner, ultimately the petitioner was liable to return the stock or pay the value of the same. In that context of the matter, the respondents seek to justify the same. 5. Having taken note of the action, two aspects arise in the present case. Firstly, since the order dated 09.01.2007 impugned at Annexure-H is assailed, the question would be as to whether the order forfeiting the stock of rice is justified or not. In that regard the fact that the stock of rice was found in the premises of the petitioner cannot be seriously in dispute. The entire case of the petitioner is that one of its customer M/s.Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri had kept the stock of rice in the premises of the petitioner for polishing and such stock of rice has been seized by the respondents. To the said extent, the petitioner had relied on a document which is produced at Annexure-F herein. 6. Further, the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.01.2007 has also noticed the said contention which had been put forthwith by the petitioner. Though the said document dated 07.01.2003 had been referred to in the penultimate paragraph of the order, the concluding paragraph of the order indicates as if the petitioner had not produced any documents to put forth such a contention. Hence, to the extent of the Deputy Commissioner coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had not established that the stock belonged to M/s.Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri may not be wholly justified. Hence, to the extent of the Deputy Commissioner coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had not established that the stock belonged to M/s.Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri may not be wholly justified. Be that as it may, since in any event the petitioner was not claiming rights to the said stock of rice, the ultimate order for forfeiting the same to the Government in any event would be justified and therefore to the said extent the said order would not call for interference. 7. Notwithstanding the said conclusion, the issue that would also arise for consideration in the instant petition as the second aspect is that, as to whether the notice dated 03.09.2009 issued to the petitioner seeking for the quantity of the rice or the value thereof would be justified. As already noticed, the stock of rice referred to and found in the premises of the petitioner is seized in the year 2003, the mahazar has been drawn and seized. When the petitioner had contended that the stock of rice did not belong to the petitioner, it was incumbent on the respondents more particularly, when a document has been relied on, to take steps to find out the source with regard to the stock of rice from the FCI and appropriate responsibility should have been fixed on the persons who would have claimed to be the owners of the stock. 8. In such circumstances, when the petitioner has not claimed to be the owner of the stock of rice which had been seized and had not made an application for releasing the said quantity of the rice in favour of the petitioner and when it is only the action of the respondents to have left the rice in the premises belonging to the petitioner without ensuring the manner in which the same would be returned by them, at this juncture after a decade, for the respondents to fix the responsibility on the petitioner would not be justified. 9. Further, what is also necessary to be noticed is that by the order dated 09.01.2007 at Annexure-H, the Deputy Commissioner in fact had not passed any other order with regard to the manner in which the stock of rice is to be treated though an order of forfeiture was made. 9. Further, what is also necessary to be noticed is that by the order dated 09.01.2007 at Annexure-H, the Deputy Commissioner in fact had not passed any other order with regard to the manner in which the stock of rice is to be treated though an order of forfeiture was made. This is more so in a circumstance when the petitioner had contended before the Deputy Commissioner that the stock of rice did not belong to the petitioner but had belonged to M/s.Nagarathna Traders, Madhugiri. Even if the Deputy Commissioner was to come to a conclusion that the said stand had not been established by the petitioner and ultimately while passing the operative portion of the order forfeiting the stock of rice to the Government, the further process to be undertaken should also have been ordered therein. That apart, from the year 2003 and even after the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2007, no steps had been taken in a circumstance where the petitioner had relied on documents to indicate that the mill itself was leased in favour of the third party. The notice issued at this juncture on 03.09.2009 to the petitioner without reference to all these aspects is without application of mind. 10. Further to find out as to whether any action had been initiated by the respondents, the file from the respondents was called for and the learned Government Advocate has made available the same to this Court. Except for the communication dated 09.07.2007 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar to take further action in the matter in that regard, there is no material to indicate the nature of action taken by the respondent to either retrieve the stock of rice and use it for public distribution or for having released the stock on securing the security or such other bank guarantee. Hence, at this distant point of time, it would not be justified to fasten the liability on the petitioner. Therefore, to the extent of the notice dated 03.09.2007 issued to the petitioner after a decade directing to return the said rice stating that the contention put forth by the petitioner, cannot be accepted and would not be justified. The notice dated 03.09.2007 is accordingly quashed. 11. Therefore, to the extent of the notice dated 03.09.2007 issued to the petitioner after a decade directing to return the said rice stating that the contention put forth by the petitioner, cannot be accepted and would not be justified. The notice dated 03.09.2007 is accordingly quashed. 11. Further the first respondent may look into the aspect with regard to the lapse committed by any officers sub-ordinates in this regard and if any further action is required in that regard, the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner may initiate action after providing opportunity to those officer for fixing responsibility and if need arises he may thereafter recover the amount from the officers on whom the responsibility would ultimately lie. 12. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed off.