Order 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar, in exercise of the powers traceable to the provision contained under Sections 3 & 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and Clause 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (for short, ‘Control Order’). 2. The Deputy Commissioner has ordered for forfeiture of 900 bags (450 quintals) of rice and has directed that the same be utilized for the purpose of distributing them to the cardholders through fair price depots under the public distribution system. He has further directed release of lorries after collecting the value of the lorries as determined by the Regional Transport Officer, Kolar. 3. Case of the petitioners is, that 1st petitioner is the owner of lorries bearing registration Nos.AP16TV6786 & AP02W6647 and 2nd petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP26X3419. All the three lorries, it is asserted, have valid All India Permit for carrying goods. The national permits for public carrier possessed by the petitioners in respect of these lorries are produced at Annexures-B, C & D. 4. All the three lorries were carrying different quantities of rice. The first of the lorries was carrying 80 quintals of mill hulling raw rice and cut rice from M/s. Subramanyaswamy Rice Industries, Tangutur, Andhra Pradesh to Karigiri Narasimha Rice Merchants, Tumkur, Karnataka. This is evident from the way bill produced at Annexure-E. Similarly, the second of the lorries was carrying 200 quintals paddy and rice bran and brokens, from Chandrakala Rice Traders, East Malapalli to Aannappadalal Siddheswara Market Yard Association, Solapur, Maharashtra. This is evident from the way bill produced at Annexure-F. The last of the three lorries was carrying 200 quintals of paddy and rice bran and brokens from Chandrakala Rice Traders, East Malapalli to Karaili Enterprises, Kannur, Kerala. This is evident from the way bill produced at Annexure-G. 5. The aforesaid three lorries were intersected at Nangali in Mulbagal Taluk of Kolar District, by the 2nd respondent – Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk, and the officials of the Food & Civil Supplies Department, State of Karnataka. They found that without any valid license, huge quantity of rice was being transported. This is evident from the way bill produced at Annexure-G. 5. The aforesaid three lorries were intersected at Nangali in Mulbagal Taluk of Kolar District, by the 2nd respondent – Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk, and the officials of the Food & Civil Supplies Department, State of Karnataka. They found that without any valid license, huge quantity of rice was being transported. According to the First Information Report submitted, the drivers of the lorries ran away without producing any documents pertaining to the goods carried in the 2nd three lorries. Therefore, they seized the lorries and the 1st respondent submitted a report dated 26.06.2014 to the respondent for taking further action in the matter. 6. The 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners as per Annexure-M. Petitioners submitted reply on 02.07.2014. They denied the allegation that they were illegally transporting the rice. They produced copies of national permits for public carrier with respect to the three lorries. They produced the way bills to show the destination of the commodities and the source from where they originated. They also contended that broken rice was not an essential commodity as defined in the Act and that materials were not meant for public distribution under the public distribution scheme, hence, seizure of the lorries was illegal and unlawful. They justified their action stating that the commodities were transported in accordance with law and there was nothing to show that the lorry owners had indulged in illegal transportation of the commodities. 7. The 1st respondent having considered the objections filed, has come to the conclusion that documents produced by the lorry owners were not produced at the time when the lorries were heading towards the rice mill at Bangarpet, and therefore, it had to be inferred that lorries were transporting rice meant for public distribution system to sell them in black market. 1st respondent has further found that there was no reason for the vehicles to reach Mulbagal if the destination was Kerala and Maharashtra. Based on this suspicion and inferences drawn, 1st respondent has come to the conclusion that commodities transported were meant for distribution under the Control Order to poor people in the State and the action of the petitioners was clearly designed to defeat the said purpose and object. 8. Based on this suspicion and inferences drawn, 1st respondent has come to the conclusion that commodities transported were meant for distribution under the Control Order to poor people in the State and the action of the petitioners was clearly designed to defeat the said purpose and object. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri A.V. Nishanth contends that 1st respondent has acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order as the petitioners or the persons to whom the commodities were being delivered by transporting the same to the destination did not fall within the definition of the term ‘authorized dealer’ as defined under clause 2(c) of the Control Order, 1992, nor there was any authorization issued to the petitioners or to the persons to whom the goods were being transported as per Clause 3 of the Control Order and therefore, question of violation of Clause 18 of the Control Order did not arise. 9. He further points out that the way bills produced at Annexures-E, F & G clearly disclosed the source from where the goods emanated and the destination to which they were headed. The said way bills which bore the seal of the Transport Department of Andhra Pradesh could not have been brushed aside as created documents. He has further contended that when a detailed reply was given to the notice issued by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-N, the 1st respondent was not justified in rejecting the reply on the ground that the drivers did not disclose this information at the time when the seizure was made. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of M/S.CHAMUNDI ROLLER FLOOR MILLS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT & OTHERS – ILR 2004 KAR 4544, to contend that Control Order did not prohibit procuring food grains of any quantity from private sources and that the petitioners were not expected to purchase or procure rice from authorized dealer under the Control Order, therefore, it could not be held that there was violation of Clause 18 of the Control Order. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate strongly supports the order passed by the 1st respondent contending inter alia that burden was on the petitioners to disclose under what authority or license they were transporting the goods and under what circumstances they had come to Mulbagal. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate strongly supports the order passed by the 1st respondent contending inter alia that burden was on the petitioners to disclose under what authority or license they were transporting the goods and under what circumstances they had come to Mulbagal. Nondisclosure of such essential things, according to the learned Additional Government Advocate, justified the inferences drawn by the 1st respondent. He submits that procedural requirement was followed by drawing mahazar. It is his submission that when the lorry drivers fled away from the scene without producing relevant documents, adverse inference was required to drawn against the petitioners and therefore, improvement of the version by producing documents subsequently, will not make the action of the petitioners legal or justified. 11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the materials on record, I find that under Clause 2(c) of the Control Order, the term ‘authorized dealer’ is defined as follows: “(c) ‘Authorized Dealer’ means a person, a firm, a Corporation, an association of persons or a Cooperative Society or any other institutions authorized as an agent by the Government or by an authority by the Government in that behalf to be a wholesale dealer engaged in the purchase of essential commodities and sale of these essential commodities to the fair price depots for distribution to ration card holders.” 12. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that either the petitioners or the persons to whom the goods were intended to be delivered were wholesale dealers engaged in the purchase of essential commodities and sale of the same to the fair price depots for distribution to the ration card holders. Clause 18 of the Control Order prohibits unauthorized sale of food grains and essential commodities issued through public distribution system. It lays down as under: “18. Prohibition of unauthorized sale of food grains and essential commodities issued through Public Distribution System: (a) No person other than the authorized dealer shall purchase or sell or store or offer for sale of food grains in any quantity of any food grains or essential commodities issued to the authorized dealer for distribution under public distribution system. (b) No authorized dealer shall sell or offer for sale of food grains and other essential commodities at a price exceeding in the price fixed by the Government. (b) No authorized dealer shall sell or offer for sale of food grains and other essential commodities at a price exceeding in the price fixed by the Government. (c) No authorized wholesale dealer shall distribute food grains or other essential commodities under public distribution system to any person other than fair price depots and no fair price depot shall sell any essential commodity issued under public distribution system to any person other than a ration card holder attached to the fair price depot.” 13. To make the provisions of Clause 18 of the Control Order applicable, it has to be established that the purchase or sale, etc., of the food grains in any quantity was out of the commodities issued to the authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system, as stated in Clause 18(a) of the Control Order. Only under such circumstances, a person other than the authorized dealer would be held liable for dealing in such essential commodities. 14. In the instant case, petitioners are not authorized dealers. They are not shown to be engaged in purchase, storate or sale of food grains which were issued to the authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system. Therefore, essential ingredient explicitly stated under Clause 18(a) i.e., the goods/commodities must have been issued to the authorized dealer under the public distribution system is missing. No finding is recorded by the 1st respondent in this regard. In fact, there is no material whatsoever to indicate this aspect. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, unless there is material to show that the commodities were issued to an authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system or that a person other than the authorized dealer had sought to purchase or sell or store or offer for sale food grains meant for distribution under public distribution system through the price depots, prohibition contained under Clause 18(a) of the Control Order would not be attracted. In the absence of such findings such action will not attract penal measures including seizure or forfeiture. 15. 1st respondent has totally erred in not appreciating the objections filed by the petitioners which were supported by documentary evidence. Documentary evidence disclose that lorries were covered by national permit held by the owners. In the absence of such findings such action will not attract penal measures including seizure or forfeiture. 15. 1st respondent has totally erred in not appreciating the objections filed by the petitioners which were supported by documentary evidence. Documentary evidence disclose that lorries were covered by national permit held by the owners. Three way bills produced disclose the name and address of the person consigning the goods and the name of the person to whom the goods were consigned. No other investigation is made by any of the authorities, let alone the 1st respondent during the course of enquiry regarding the falsity of the version of the petitioners with reference to the origin and destination of the goods. In that view of the matter, based on mere inferences, 1st respondent has persuaded himself to pass penal order which has drastic consequences. Therefore, entire approach adopted by the 1st respondent is illegal. 16. Although learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is an alternative remedy and petitioners ought to have filed an appeal under Section 6(c) of the Act, since the matter touches the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent as none of the conditions mentioned in Clause 18 of the Control Order or the provisions contained under Clause 2(c) of the Control Order are satisfied, I do not find it just and proper to relegate the petitioners to the alternative remedy. 17. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. The three lorries have been already released. Hence, 1st respondent is directed to take all consequential steps to refund the amount deposited as security for the release of vehicles and to return the commodities seized or to pay the value of the same if the commodities have been utilized, by making appropriate valuation of the commodities in accordance with law. The directions shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.