1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar, in exercise of the powers traceable to the provision contained under Sections 3 & 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and Clause 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (for short, ‘Control Order’).

2. The Deputy Commissioner has ordered for forfeiture of 900 bags (450 quintals) of rice and has directed that the same be utilized for the purpose of distributing them to the cardholders through fair price depots under the public distribution system. He has further directed release of lorries after collecting the value of the lorries as determined by the Regional Transport Officer, Kolar.

3. Case of the petitioners is, that 1st petitioner is the owner of lorries bearing registration Nos.AP16TV6786 & AP02W6647 and 2nd petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP26X3419. All the three lorries, it is asserted, have valid All India Permit for carrying goods. The national permits for public carrier possessed by the petitioners in respect of these lorries are produced at Annexures-B, C & D.

4. All the three lorries were carrying different quantities of rice. The first of the lorries was carrying 80 quintals of mill hulling raw rice and cut rice from M/s. Subramanyaswamy Rice Industries, Tangutur, Andhra Pradesh to Karigiri Narasimha Rice Merchants, Tumkur, Karnataka. This is evident from the way bill produced at Annexure-E. Similarly, the second of the lorries was carrying 200 quintals paddy and rice bran and brokens, from Chandrakala Rice Traders, East Malapalli to Aannappadalal Siddheswara Market Yard Association, Solapur, Maharashtra. This is evident from the way bill produced at Annexure-F. The last of the three lorries was carrying 200 quintals of paddy and rice bran and brokens from Chandrakala Rice Traders, East Malapalli to Karaili Enterprises, Kannur, Kerala. This is evident from the way bill produced at Annexure-G.

5. The aforesaid three lorries were intersected at Nangali in Mulbagal Taluk of Kolar District, by the 2nd respondent – Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk, and the officials of the Food & Civil Supplies Department, State of Karnataka. They found that without any valid license, huge quantity of rice was being transported. According to the First Information Report submitted, the drivers of the lorries ran away without producing any documents pertaining to the goods carried in the 2nd three lorries. Therefore, they seized the lorries and the 1st respondent submitted a report dated 26.06.2014 to the respondent for taking further action in the matter.

6. The 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners as per Annexure-M. Petitioners submitted reply on 02.07.2014. They denied the allegation that they were illegally transporting the rice. They produced copies of national permits for public carrier with respect to the three lorries. They produced the way bills to show the destination of the commodities and the source from where they originated. They also contended that broken rice was not an essential commodity as defined in the Act and that materials were not meant for public distribution under the public distribution scheme, hence, seizure of the lorries was illegal and unlawful. They justified their action stating that the commodities were transported in accordance with law and there was nothing to show that the lorry owners had indulged in illegal transportation of the commodities.

7. The 1st respondent having considered the objections filed, has come to the conclusion that documents produced by the lorry owners were not produced at the time when the lorries were heading towards the rice mill at Bangarpet, and therefore, it had to be inferred that lorries were transporting rice meant for public distribution system to sell them in black market. 1st respondent has