S.T.G. Abdul Latif vs The Collector of Tiruchirapalli and Others

Ramaprasada Rao, J.—The petitioner, a dealer in paddy and rice at Attur, Salem Dist. and who held a licence under the Madras Paddy and

Rice Dealers (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1965, purchased 195 bags of paddy in Annamangalam and Puliyur village, Perambalur Taluk,

Tiruchirapalli Dist. and was transporting the same to his business place at Attur in Salem Dist. It is not in dispute that on 9th July, 1969, when the

goods were being transported, there was no movement control and the goods were free to move. But the lorries carrying the paddy were

intercepted and stopped near Krishnapuram within Tiruchirapalli Dist. limits and the Taluk Supply Officer, Perambalur, with the help of Revenue

Inspector directed the lorry drivers to take the goods to the Taluk Office at Perambalur where they were eventually unloaded and seized. When

the occupants of the lorry were questioned, they gave a statement at that time which disclosed that the goods were being transported to the

respective owners and in the absence of any control over movement, such transport was legal. On a perusal of the records produced, I am unable

to find any indication that the authorities seized the goods in exercise of their powers under the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing and

Regulation) Order, 1969. How-ever, ultimately the goods were seized and the petitioner had to come to this Court for a writ of Mandamus

directing the respondents to release the goods and deliver the same to him.

It may be mentioned at the outset that Interim orders were secured by the petitioner whereunder he obtained possession of the goods on an

undertaking that he would produce similar goods as and when required.

The contention of the petitioner is that the seizure is ab initio illegal, because there is no Indication anywhere that action was taken under the

Order of 1968. Secondly, it is stated that as movement of the goods was not controlled or restricted, the authorities had no power to intercept the

goods and seize the same in the manner they did. Thirdly, it is argued that the prescription in S. 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, not having

been followed, the seizure itself is defective and ultimately the action is not warranted in law.

The learned Government Pleader would state that the action was takes under the Order of 1968 and the seizure was necessitated because the

petitioner had no license to deal in rice and paddy under the Order of 1968 and bad no premises in which he could stack the goods for purposes

of trade and commerce. The further contention is that action was takes bona fide under the Order of 1968, and that being in exercise of the

statutory power, so mandamus should issue.

I have already said that on a perusal of the records, there is no indication that the authorities were prompted to act and seize the goods in

exercise of the statutory power under the Order of 1968. On the other hand, the record is silent as to the circumstances which prompted them to

seize the paddy. It would be rather inconvenient for a citizen, if he were not told that his property or right is being interdicted or impinged upon by

virtue of statutory power, the source of which is traceable to any particular provision of law. The authorities in the instant case were apprised of the

fact that the goods belonged to certain individuals and there being no control over movement of paddy or rice at or about that time, the transport of

paddy was regular. When this was the case, there was no occasion for the authorities to act under the Order of 1968 on the ground that the

petitioner has violated Rule 5 thereto. The record does not disclose any further investigation is the matter. As the situation invoice quasi-penal

consequence, a citizen ought not to be subjected to such violations of his right to hold property on more surmises or apprehensions. I am of the

view that as the source of power when enabled the authorities to intercept and laterly seize the articles is not apparent on the face of the record the

order which followed resulting in the seizure of paddy and complained of by the petitioner is not warranted and the seizure has to be characterised

as an illegal one.

Even apart from the circumstances stated above, it is common ground that the procedure prescribed for search and seizure of the goods in a

motor vehicle as contemplated is rule 14 of the Order of 1968 has not been followed in that the mahazar which which has to be attested by two

respectable witnesses, etc, has not been prepared as mandatorily required under S. 103, Crl. P.C. Even in this behalf, the seizure violates one of

the fundamental prerequisites of search and seizure.

Lastly, the statement of the occupants of lorries is so clear that it was not reasonable for the officers to have exercised jurisdiction under the

Order of 1968 without further investigation and without an enquiry.

In all these aspects, the seizure of the goods was not made under a lawful authority or under a source of power traceable to any existing

provision of law.

Under these circumstances. the rule alai is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.