Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 21 (KAR)

H. S. Raju v. State Of Karnataka

2019-01-02

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - These petitions are directed against the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the first respondent (Annexure-C), confirming the order passed by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner, dated 18.02.1997 vide Annexure-B, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has confiscated 83 bags of rice and lorry bearing registration No.CNT-8372. 2. The brief facts of the case are that first petitioner is the owner of 83 bags of rice and second petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.CNT-8372. The first petitioner transported 83 bags of rice from API and CCS Rice Mill to Siddeshwara Rice Mill for polishing the rice. The third respondent seized the lorry along with 83 bags of rice on the ground that the first petitioner is transporting the rice without obtaining the Transport Certificate from the Tahsildar. After the rice bags have been seized, the respondents initiated the proceedings under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('Act' for short). 3. By an interim order dated 28.12.1991, on an indemnity bond of Rs. 33,950/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,000/-, 83 rice bags were released to the first petitioner and on an indemnity bond of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a surety of Rs. 50,000/- the lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 was released to the second petitioner. A show-cause notice dated 08.01.1992 was issued to the petitioners calling upon them as to why the seized rice should not be confiscated in favour of the Government. In response to the said notice, the petitioners have submitted a common reply dated 20.10.1992. After hearing the parties, by order dated 18.02.1997 the Deputy Commissioner confiscated 83 bags of rice and also the lorry bearing registration No. CNT- 8372. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the first respondent under Section 6C of the Act. The appellate authority, by order dated 01.08.2011 has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the order passed by the first and the second respondents. 5. Sri T.Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 83 bags of rice was purchased by the first petitioner from API and CCS Rice Mills and they were transporting the same to Siddeshwara Rice Mill for polishing the rice. 5. Sri T.Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 83 bags of rice was purchased by the first petitioner from API and CCS Rice Mills and they were transporting the same to Siddeshwara Rice Mill for polishing the rice. He relied upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Khalimulla Khan vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1986 Kar.1641 to contend that release certificate need not be obtained for transporting the rice within the State. Secondly, he contended that the Deputy Commissioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 6B of the Act. To substantiate this submission, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Menur Madhava Kamath & Co. And Others vs. State Of Mysore reported in 1970(1) Mys.L.J.143. Thirdly, he contended that the second petitioner's lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 has been taken for hire by the first petitioner for transporting the rice bags and the respondent has no authority to confiscate the lorry under Section 6A of the Act. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner vs. Rudolph Fernandes reported in ILR 1988 Kar.1086. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State contended that as per the provisions of Section 6B of the Act notice has been issued to the petitioners. Pursuant to the notice, they have given a common reply. After considering the reply the order has been passed. Secondly, she contended that it is the clear finding of the authority that the first petitioner has not produced any document to prove that he is the owner of 83 rice bags. Thirdly, she contended that the second petitioner's lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 is also involved in illegal transportation of the rice bags. Therefore, the authority has rightly confiscated the lorry which is involved in transporting 83 bags of rice. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 8. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner was transporting 83 bags of rice from API and CC Rice Mill to Siddeshwara Rice Mill in the lorry bearing registration No. CNT- 8372 and the same has been seized by the competent authority. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 8. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner was transporting 83 bags of rice from API and CC Rice Mill to Siddeshwara Rice Mill in the lorry bearing registration No. CNT- 8372 and the same has been seized by the competent authority. After initiating the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act, the competent authority has issued notice on 08.01.1992 calling upon the petitioners to show-cause as to why the seized rice bags should not be confiscated in favour of the Government. In response to the said notice both the petitioners have submitted a common reply dated 20.10.1992, which is extracted herein below: "That on the night of 19.12.1991, (early hours) at about 1.30 a.m., the first respondent who was having his paddy shelled in A.P.I. & C.C.S. Rice Mills was informed by the said Rice Mills, that the paddy hulled by them cannot be polished for want of proper polishing machinery which was not in order in their Rice Mills. Therefore, those people requested the first respondent to take them to Siddalingeshwara Rice Mills & Industries for the purposes of getting the hulled rice polished. Accordingly, this respondent loaded the same (83 bags of rice) in the lorry in question for purposes of getting the same polished in Siddalingeshwra Rice Mills, at that time, the Senior First Grade Food Inspector, alleging incorrectly and illegally on extraneous consideration, those goods which were unloaded at Siddalingeshwara Rice Mills and has filed this report before this Hon'ble Court through Davanagere Rural Police." 9. In the case of Menur Madhava Kamath (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, notice has not been issued to the owner of the property and not intimated them the grounds on which the authorities proposes to make a confiscation order. In the case on hand, show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners and they have also given a reply to the said show-cause notice. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the case on hand. 10. In the case of Khalimulla Khan (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Hon'ble Court has held that it is open to the dealer or a miller to sell any quantity of levy-free rice within the State. 10. In the case of Khalimulla Khan (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Hon'ble Court has held that it is open to the dealer or a miller to sell any quantity of levy-free rice within the State. In the case on hand, the specific case of the respondents is that the first petitioner is not the owner of the seized 83 bags of rice and he has not produced any documents to show that he is the owner of the rice bags and he has also not produced any documents to show how he has acquired the ownership over the 83 bags of rice. Since he has failed to produce the documents to prove the ownership of the property, the authorities have rightly held that 83 bags of rice which the petitioners are transporting is not a levy-free rice. Once the first petitioner has failed to establish the ownership of the 83 bags of rice and it is not a levy-free rice, the authorities have rightly confiscated the same. 11. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 and the first petitioner has hired the lorry only for transporting 83 bags of rice. Since the owner of the vehicle in which the essential commodities is carried has no knowledge about any illicit activities being carried out, without any proper finding in respect of the involvement of the second petitioner's lorry in transporting 83 bags of rice, the authorities have wrongly confiscated the lorry. On this aspect, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rudolph Fernandes (supra) wherein it is held that the owner of the vehicle in which essential commodity is carried, with his knowledge, connives in the illicit activity, he has to be punished by confiscation of the vehicle. In the case on hand, both the authorities have not given any finding regarding the involvement of the lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 in transporting 83 bags of rice. In respect of this aspect is concerned, the matter requires reconsideration. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner confiscating indemnity bond of Rs. 33,950/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. In respect of this aspect is concerned, the matter requires reconsideration. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner confiscating indemnity bond of Rs. 33,950/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,000/- instead of 83 bags of rice, which is confirmed by the first respondent - State Government, is confirmed. In respect of confiscation of indemnity bond of Rs. 1,50,000/-instead of lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 is concerned, it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the same in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Rudolph Fernandes (supra). 13. In the above terms, the writ petitions stand disposed of.