IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1 1114 DAY 01:' AUGUST 2009i
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE_As.I1f1"J.GUNJ§1. : j
WRIT PETITION NO.1225i';!v2£}0§§(C§M';E('§)
BETWEEN:
M/S.Karthik mdusirit-:3, ' '
Partwrship % %
530.113/1, 25% %
Bangaltbsre R1n'a1"IJi$t!'ict, -- I
Bangalofs; 4 .562. 133.'
Represented by its " ' " '
Parmer
A2et11is'day,"'thc Court made the
foIlowi;ng:_ _ v . '
ooaomz
pet:itiohcr------is questioning Annexure 'F' and 3.
Vcwjfder at Anncxurc 'G'. Ammxum 'F' is a.
7:notice and Annoxuro 'G' is an order
which the food gains, which were seized
' petitiozaer, were sold and the amount is kept in
V. the District Treasury. %
E
.3-
2. The matter arises in the following manner:
The case of the petitioner is that ~
mrtnemhip firm in the business of K
poultry feed and Wheat Flour. fix;
the Petitioner has obtained is
reflstered with the local
the Kaz-me M2003 and
other allied pre\'fi$iens."VV_I1§' i$' e:3§;_'. petitioner
that it has " from one
was Transport to the
premises «ef a copy of which is
_ at 'A'. In the said invoice,
petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that
gunny bags are damaged, the
is; in gunny bag of 50 kg capacity and
& instead of 190 bags of 1 quintal wch, 380
ef 50 kgs each are despatched by transport. The
. V Vu eonsigunent reached the premises of the petitioner
at 11.30 am. on 12.03.2009.
42
3. It appears the petitioner had gone
pilgrimage and he received a message on 4'
that a Food Inspector has come K V'
stock of the wheat in the factoIV;3I.Ve£.%'_1:ci
requested to returri hack.
returned. The petitioner _ "imk..~Ei
.5-
i.e., 06.04.2009, the respondent was of the View ihat
the wheat would amount to perishable ”
exposed to the vagaries of weather, is ‘fox
unusable, proposed to distribute _
at the rate fixed by ti:1e__
Distribution system. A sum of 68, feaiizedi
and is kept in the _
4. Mr. appearing
for the ‘ petition was
enterteineti’ ” interim order was
g’anted:”on” the respondents not to
precipitate ‘tine Vmatiaef “for period of ten days.
isfinotieed that the said interim order was
ccm;me:’ie:sriifa;:¢mcr period of six weeks and later on
–V this» order was not oontinued for obvious
inasmuch as even bairtre the interim order was
Annexure ‘G’ was Qven effect to inasmuch as
fiie food gains were sold. ,fi
Z’
-5-
6. Mr. P.S.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner vehemently submits that there
finding recorded by the Competent Authority ”
the Food Grains, which are seized is 1
commodity. He further submits
as to Whether there is any cieas violation of
the issue of the show cause as of
the seized Articles is the
Food gsins are__so1d .vs.t…};i1e selling in
favour of submits that
in all its’ % m %%% gumsmesisugm to have sold the
food g’eIiI1§”at ‘_Aiiotion and then the amount
cou1d;}1av_e giseniifoéflie suooessfiii party.
‘Ir’. Prasad, learned HCGP supports
Pie submits that indeed the Food
Graiiis, are seized, attract, the Essential
H K He further submits that the Wheat Flour
perishable commodity if not used within time,
” iiiasmuch as it would loose its efiicacy, it was sold at
the rate given to the Public Distribution System. He fl
nu’
Z
-7-
further submits that the matter is pending adjudicafion
inasmuch as it is yet to be decided that Whether t§j1e3§e–«i;’s- 2
vielation ef the Essential Commodities Act or A *
8. I have perused the
‘ the respondents. Section 2(2)’ wfouki relate .
Commodities decimation em; * ifurther
classified as classes of
with Section 2(e.}{v), foodstufis,
including ‘V the wheat
flour 5,45%? foodstufi’. If any
deeisio¥ 1.A’is’–.1eg;’;a1’d, one can refer to the
decision of £136 the case of Satpal Gupta
reported in 1982(1) 800 610
is also considered to be a foodstuff and
it”. its’ tiierefere an essential commodity. The
‘spomencieyeje ‘foodstufl’ itself would indicate that one
V’ isconsumable in the nature of food. Whatever is
by the respondent is wheat flour, which is
consumable as food. Hence, I am of the View that the
seized article satisfies the requirement of an essential
fie
– 3 –
commodity as contemplated under Section 2(a)(v) of the
Act. ‘ _
9. This takes us to the next question as_ %
the nature of the order, which would A
favour of the petitioner in these
dispute that the food
already been sold. The iieu 1 stage
inasmuch as the mateef on
merits, having regard “oaziee °no1;ioe issued
and joefitioners. The Show
cause fiotiee the Wheat flour bags
weI’eVe§{amo1t1ed it’ 1a= of Food Corporation of
. ,4,I:1d’i§sa5’2~ .:1-af.=:1j1ee,AV”Vit’**”W’as prima facie found that the
belonged to the Food Corporation of
that is a matteer which is roqmred’ to be
‘-once thrashed out dialog’ the enquiry as
under Section 6-13 of the Act. Indeed
K fielcfion 6-B wouid refer to the issuance of a Show cause
‘ notice before confiscation of fjssential Commodity.
Section 6-B(1)(c) would indicate that reasonable fi
%
opportunity should be given to the person from wéjem
the articles are seized. The authorities are yet ”
a finding as to whether the seized ‘
the petitioner or that they «L ta} eetné, e e
Corporation of India. Having sgid am pf A”
that notwithstanding the seme-
lacuna in the iSSI1ance;:’_:(“jf and
aiso the order ftpd gfamgt.
at the rate, Distribution
System, ” éefiefifies in the
circumsifazxeesx te[ i1aa_;\-.’e I invoked Section 6—A(ii)
i.nasmuch’es the’ to be sold by public
V auctripzjfi “fer maximum amount inasmuch as
aired to be paid to the petitioner in the
eifeiiifpf hie”_~,=s.§;eeess.
wexgacimd identical View is taken by this Court in
of &S fi V/S. State of
% and others mponed in Am 1935 KAI!
L161 where this Court was of the View that durm’ g the
pendency of the writ petifion, the food articles Wersefl
i”
for t}t1§;’pt,ttitiéi”1erV_’s<1i¥afiits; that a direction he issued to
at the earliest
montlls from the date of receipt of this
V V ' ~ of accordingly. %
– 13 –
sold. Hence, it was required that the wd proceaedings
itseif should be concluded within a limited period.
II. In so far the damages which is
the petitioner is concexned, assuming.
itself was bad, the respondent
decision rendered by . sjof
Mariappa V/s.state pf
reported in 193913; fsaid so, I am
of the View that. to the
12. M;iP, ” “ieamed counsel appearing
V ings shall be concluded within’ a
With this above observation, petition stands
14. Mr.Narendra Prasad, learned HCGP appcétring
for responcients 1 and 2 is; permitted to
appearance within four weeks. ‘
SP8