The court established the legal validity of the seizure and confiscation under the EC Act, 1955 and related orders, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements.

Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 17-3-1993 on the file of the 1st respondent herein pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in F1/41516/91 dated 30-8-1991 and to quash to G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 17-3-1993 and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioners herein have filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material a legations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments.

4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.

5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as seen from the affidavit are as follows : The 1st petitioner is the registered owner of the Lorry bearing registration number TN 74/0063 and the same being used as a public carrier. The 2nd petitioner is a wholesale dealer in Paddy and rice possessing licence in KEDL No. 12/86/87 and carrying on business at Vanniyankode, Parasala, Trivandrum District, Kerala, as per the condition of the licence without any adverse remarks. As per the order placed by M/s. Ladma Traders of Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, the 2nd petitioner had sold 161 bags of paddy under Invoice No. 1 dated 20-5-1991 and delivery note bearing No. 71751 dated 20-5-1991 and engaged the 1st petitioner's lorry to transport the abovesaid paddy bags on payment of hire charges. At the request of the 2nd petitioner, his driver loaded the paddy bags and proceedings to Radhapuram. On the way the vehicle was intercepted by the 3rd respondent near Marthandam junction and effected seizure of the vehicle and paddy bags and registered a case in Crime No. 61/91 of the TNETA (RT) Order 1984 and under clause 3 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Procurement Levy) Order read with S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act, 1955 and detained the vehicle under his custody. On knowing the seizure the first petitioner herein filed a petition before the 2nd respondent for release of his lorry and the request was rejected and he has filed a petition before the Govt. and the Government in their Letter No. 51915/G1/91-1 dated 28-8-1991 ordered for release of the vehicle on furnishing immovable property security and as directed by the Government he has furnished immovable property security and the vehicle has been released to him. The 2nd petitioner also filed claim petition for release of the paddy bags but no order was passed and the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under the E.C. Act, 1955 and without considering the written explanation and other relevant and particulars placed before him passed an order confiscating entire paddy bags and imposed a fine of Rs. 30,276/- in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioners after receiving the order passed by the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the Government under S. 6(c) of the E.C. Act by raising various legal grounds to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The above appeal was filed on 21-10-91 and the 1st respond