B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single judge cf this Court in W. P. No. 19393 of 1995 dated 14-9-1995. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition refusing to grant any relief as prayed for.

( 2 ) THE appellant-writ petitioner is a businessman from Kota, Rajasthan. The 1st respondent herein seized the oil tanker bearing No. TSA. 5666 and palmoline oil under a cover of panchanama on 24-8-1995 on the allegation that the petitioner herein contravened Clause 2 (a) (3) (sic. 3) of the Pulses, Edible oilseeds, and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order), Sections 3 (2) (a) and (d) Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955. The tanker carrying palmoline oil was coming from grace Trading (P) Ltd. , No. 9 Madras to the petitioner at Kota, Rajasthan under valid Form No. 20, Money receipt and frieght receipt. The same was in tercepted by the 1st respondent herein near Khammam town while the tanker was stationed at Warangal cross-roads. It is averred that on interrogation the driver of the tanker did not give any satisfactory reply but the 1st respondent- vigilance Inspector suspected that the oil was likely to be sold in Khammam town to the oil traders without any valid documents. The driver is alleged to have stated that on instructions of the petitioner, he was to dispose of the said oil at cheaper rate in Andhra Pradesh instead of selling the same at Kota and as such he took a diversion of the road from the National Highway to the State highway with a mala fide intention and stationed the vehicle by parking it opposite to Sri Srinivasa Auto Service, Warangal X roads, Khammam and started making enquiries for the details of the oil traders and millers of khammam for selling the same at cheaper rates. The 1st respondent came to prima facie conclusion that the petitioner through the driver was indulging in clandestine business of palmoline oil without any valid documents i. e. , way/ transit permit etc. The said seizure by the 1st respondent herein is questioned in the instant writ petition on the ground that the respondents have no jurisdiction whatsoever to stop the lorry and at any rate, the respondents are not concerned as to whether the lorry driver had all the necessary documents including transit permit. The action of the seizure is alleged to be high-handed. It is stated that the 1st respondent is not concerned with the travel documents and for that reason, the 1st respondent cannot seize the oil and the tanker. It is the case of the peritioner that the action of the respondents herein is one without jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that the vehicle was seized on suspicion that the palmoline oil was likely to be disposed of at khammam itself and on that count, me petitioner was indulging in clandestine business of selling the palmoline oil without any authorisation.

( 4 ) AFTER an elaborate consideration of the matter, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no relief could be granted and a direction cannot be issued to release the oil and the tanker in favour of the petitioner pending the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential commodities Act before the 2nd respondent. The learned Judge relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 954 of 1995 dated 4-9-1995. Hence the writ appeal.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-Writ petitioner Mr. V. H. R. R. Swamy submits that the seizure and all consequential proceedings are absolutely illegal, void all initio and suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner who is a business-man and a dealer was merely transporting oil from Madras to Kota, Rajasthan having purchased the same at Madras. The petitioner is stated to be a whole-sale dealer in the State of Rajasthan. The respondents are stated to have exercised

Click Here to Read the rest of this document