M. Abdul Samath vs The District Supply Officer

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

It is submitted that the petitioner is a licenced trader dealing in paddy and rice. The petitioner is carrying on his business in the name and style of

AMAR stores. While so, the respondent had passed the impugned order in his proceedings Na.Ka. 22375/99-N1, dated 7.12.1999, cancelling

the whole sale licence of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent

contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 and that the said order had been passed

without giving a show cause notice to the petitioner as per Clause 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order,

1984.

The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent without giving the petitioner

an opportunity of being heard.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner has been repeatedly contravening the provisions of

the Tamilnadu Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In spite of the temporary suspension of the licence of the petitioner, the petitioner has been

involved in the illegal transportation of Essential Commodities like paddy and rice. On one such occasion, the District Supply Officer, Madurai, had

inspected the petitioner''s lorry bearing Registration No. TN-60-6586, near Kambam, on 5.6.96, with 145 bags of rice being smuggled to Kerala

State without any valid permit or purchase bill. Therefore, the petitioner''s lorry bearing Registration No. TN-60-6586 had been seized.

Thereafter, on 9.9.96, the petitioner had submitted a petition before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, stating that he is the owner of the

seized lorry. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner had not mentioned anything about his wholesale business of rice or paddy. However, he

had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 10355 of 1995, wherein by an order, dated 12.6.96, this Court had directed the District

Revenue Officer, Madurai, to release the lorry subject to certain conditions. According to one of the conditions the petitioner was to file an

affidavit of undertaking that he would not use the lorry for any illegal activities. Based on the said condition the lorry was temporarily released, as

per the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, made in Roc. No. 71034/96, dated 14.6.96.

It is further stated that charges had been framed against the licencee, u/s 68 of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and notices

had been served on him calling for an enquiry. After hearing the contentions, it was held that the charges framed against the petitioner had been

proved and the 145 bags of rice seized earlier and the security deposit of Rs. 15,000/- remitted by the petitioner had been ordered to be

confiscated as per the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, dated 19.11.1996. Even thereafter, the petitioner was found to be

transporting rice, illicitly, to the State of Kerala. Therefore, the whole sale licence granted to the petitioner for dealing in paddy and rice had been

placed under suspension, as per the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, dated 16.8.99, as per the provisions of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 and the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities Trade Article (Regulation and Trade) Order, 1984. Therefore, the petitioner

had preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Theni, on 25.8.1999. Thereafter, a notice had been served on the petitioner calling

him for an enquiry. Based on the contentions raised, the District Revenue Officer, Theni, had dismissed the appeal petition, on 29.10.1999, as the

charges against the petitioner had been proved. After the rejection of the appeal by the District Revenue Officer, the District Supply Officer, Theni,

had passed final orders, on 7.12.1999, cancelling the licence issued to the petitioner, granting 30 days time to file an appeal. The petitioner has

filed the present writ petition challenging the said impugned order of the respondent, dated 7.12.1999, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity of being

heard.

Per contra the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated

7.12.1999, after hearing the contentions on behalf of the petitioner and after giving sufficient opportunity to him to represent his case. It is also

stated by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the

alternative remedy of filing an appeal as provided under the law.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had not refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent. In such circumstances, the

writ petition stands dismissed, as the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed

by the respondent, at this stage. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings before the

appropriate forum in the manner known to law.