Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.KONDAIAH, T.NARSINGA RAO
P.Ramachandra Chetty - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD, Government of India, NEW DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 01-19-78
FOODGRAINS DEALERS LICENSING ORDER - ENTRY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE - REASONABLE BELIEF - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - SEC. 3 - A. P. FOODGRAINS DEALERS LICENSING ORDER, 1964 - CLAUSE 11 - A. P. EXHIBITION OF PRICE LISTS OF GOODS ORDER, 1966 - CLAUSE 3 (I), CLAUSE 6 AND SUB-CLAUSE (C) OF CLAUSE 6 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 19 (1) (F) - INTERPRETATION - REASONABLE BELIEF AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ENTRY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a licensed foodgrains dealer, challenged the seizure of foodgrains from his premises by the authorities, alleging that the seizure was illegal as the authorities did not have a reasonable belief that any contravention of the relevant provisions had been committed, as required under Clause 11 of the A. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the authorities did not have a reasonable belief that any contravention of the provisions of the Order had been committed, as required under Clause 11 (b) of the Order, which was a condition precedent for entry, search, and seizure. The court also held that the subsequent discovery of any discrepancy in the stock on hand could not make good the reasonable belief which an officer was bound to have initially before making an entry.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities had a reasonable belief that any contravention of the provisions of the A. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 had been committed, as required under Clause 11 (b) of the Order, which was a condition precedent for entry, search, and seizure. 2. Whether the subsequent discovery of any discrepancy in the stock on hand could make good the reasonable belief which an officer was bound to have initially before making an entry.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Clause 11 (b) of the A. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 specifically lays down that the class of officers specified therein can only enter any place or premises when they have reason to believe that any contravention of any provisions of the Order or any conditions of the license has been, or is being, or is about to be committed. 2. The reasonable belief that a contravention had been committed was a pre-condition for the seizure. Any subsequent acquisition of belief in this regard would be of no avail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings relating to the entry, search, and seizure, holding that the authorities did not have a reasonable belief that any contravention of the provisions of the Order had been committed, as required under Clause 11 (b) of the Order.
( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the proceedings of seizure of the foodgrains to be quashed by the issue of an appropriate writ or direction.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a licensed foodgrains dealer at Chittoor. On 9th and 10th February 1973, the D. S P. Vigilance Cell, Inspectors and other revenue Officials entered the residence-cum-business premises of the petitioner, searched the premises and seized nearly 2,000 bags of foodgrains. According to the officials that raided the shop, there was suppression of stock as compared with the details on the price list board exhibited in the shop. As per the board, the stock on hand was 287 bags of rice on 8-2-1973. After the sale of 193 bags on 8-2-1973, the opening balance on 9-2-1973 was 94 bags only but there was excess of 1820 bags. The officials thus allege that the petitioner contravened Clause 7-A of the A. P. Food grains Dealers licensing Order, 1964. They, therefore, seized the excess stock.
( 3 ) THE petitioner, among other grounds, also raised the contention that Clause 3 (i) of the Essential Commodities Act under which the Food grains dealers Licensing Order of 1964 is issued, infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. The further contention is that Clause 6 and sub-clause (c) of Clause 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966 are in excess of the delegated power under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The far more important question raised is that it is only a reasonable belief that any contravention of the provisions of the Order or the conditions of any licence issued thereunder has been or is being, or is about to be committed, that would give jurisdiction or empower the licensing authority or any officer specified in Clause 11 of the Licensing Order to enter and search the premises and that only on such belief he could seize the goods, but in the instant case no grounds are either alleged in the counter, nor any material is placed before the court to show that the officers concerned had any such reasonable belief either for entering or searching the premises or for seizing the foodgrains.
( 4 ) A counter is filed by the District Revenue Officer traversing the above contentions.
( 5 ) WE would in the first place advert to the question of there being any reasonable belief for the Vigilance Officer to enter or search the premises before any seizure is effected. In fact, the relevant record was not produced before us by the Government Pleader, as it is reported that the said record is now filed before the Sessions Court where an appeal under Sec. 6-C of the essential Commodities Act is pending against the order of confiscation passed by the District Revenue Officer. Thus, the records could not be produced in spite of opportunity being afforded to the respondents.
( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether in the instant case, the officers that entered the premises may be said to have a reasonable belief before they entered the premises and searched it and later seized the commodities. Clause 11 of the A. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, so far as it is relevant, reads as follows: "11. Powers of entry, search, seizure etc: (I) The Licensing authority, the Taluk Supply Officers, the Asst Taluk Supply Officers, all the Executive Officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildars, all the Executive Officers of the Commercial tax Department not below the rank of Asst. Commercial Tax officers, all the police Officers of the Police Department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Director of Civil Supplies or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, may with such assistance, if any as it thinks fit (A) xxx xxx xxx (B) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
