The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the existence of a reasonable belief as a condition precedent for the seizure of goods under the Essential Commodities Act and the need for strict compliance with the legal formalities for the exercise of the power of seizure.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks the quashing of the order of the second respondent made on 28-10-1988, whereby the Deputy Commissioner directed the sale of the paddy and rice seized from the petitioner, as an interim measure. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the second respondent (Dy. Commissioner) not to proceed u/s. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'the Act') in respect of the paddy and rice seized from the petitioner's premises. By amending the writ petition, one more prayer is sought, which is permitted. By this, the petitioner seeks quashing of the mahazar dated 27-10-1988 drawn by the third respondent, Tahsildar, whereby certain quantities of rice and paddy were seized from the petitioner's mill as per Annexure-K.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has been carrying on the rice mill business and has been hulling the paddy in his rice mill. Apart from this, he owns about 6 acres of irrigated land growing two crops of paddy in a year along with his brother, who is living jointly with the petitioner. The farm house-cum-residence of the petitioner and the rice mill are adjacent to each other and according to the petitioner he keeps the paddy grown by him in the godown adjacent to the mill godown. It is alleged that on 26/10/1988 the third respondent along with a staff of about 20 persons, including the police, came to the premises of the petitioner's rice mill at about alter threatening the inmates of the house, locked the rice mill godown as well as the farm house godown and went away. The next day, again when the petitioner was absent - since he had gone to Mandya on the next day to approach the Dy. Commissioner to report about the high handedness of the third respondent -it is alleged that the third respondent came at about 2 p. m. and removed the lock and the seal and opened the doors of the godown and seized and took away 125 quintals of paddy and 18-90 quintals of rice.

( 3 ) IN the mahazar Annexure-K, however, it is stated that the quantum of paddy seized was 88 quintals 81 Kgs. of paddy and 18 quintals 44 Kgs. of rice. The mahazar gives the time of the taking away of these articles as 11 a. m. on 27-10-1988 and that the third respondent had put his lock and seal on the rice mill on 26-10-1988 at 4 p. m. For the purpose of this writ petition, I have to proceed as if the statement made in Annexure-K (mahazar) is the correct fact. It is not necessary for me to go into the correctness of the assertion made in para 4 of the writ petition as to why the third respondent seized the paddy and rice in question. However, the petitioner has been asserting throughout that he has not contravened any provision of law and therefore there was no basis to seize the articles in question.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3 acted contrary to cl. 12 (2) of the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short, 'the Levy Order') while seizing the articles in question. It was also stated in the writ petition, at para 5 that there was no cause whatsoever for the act complained of and that the third respondent acted arbitrarily and unlawfully while seizing the paddy without there being any reasonable grounds to believe that there has been any contravention of the provisions of the Levy Order.

( 5 ) AFTER the aforesaid seizure, the Tahsildar seems to have made a report to the 2nd responders who directed as an interim order that the seized goods are likely to get decayed and therefore the paddy shall be hulled to the "levy quality" and shall be sold "in the manner of public distribution system. " The order further states that it was made u/s. 6a (2) (ii) of the Act and that the receipt from the sale of the paddy, as aforesaid, after hulling, shall be credited to agricultural programmes. This order is challenged on the ground that the same contravenes the provisions of S. 6a of the Act and it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in making the said inte