JUDGMENT :

H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - These petitions are directed against the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the first respondent (Annexure-C), confirming the order passed by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner, dated 18.02.1997 vide Annexure-B, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has confiscated 83 bags of rice and lorry bearing registration No.CNT-8372.

2. The brief facts of the case are that first petitioner is the owner of 83 bags of rice and second petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.CNT-8372. The first petitioner transported 83 bags of rice from API and CCS Rice Mill to Siddeshwara Rice Mill for polishing the rice. The third respondent seized the lorry along with 83 bags of rice on the ground that the first petitioner is transporting the rice without obtaining the Transport Certificate from the Tahsildar. After the rice bags have been seized, the respondents initiated the proceedings under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('Act' for short).

3. By an interim order dated 28.12.1991, on an indemnity bond of Rs. 33,950/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,000/-, 83 rice bags were released to the first petitioner and on an indemnity bond of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a surety of Rs. 50,000/- the lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 was released to the second petitioner. A show-cause notice dated 08.01.1992 was issued to the petitioners calling upon them as to why the seized rice should not be confiscated in favour of the Government. In response to the said notice, the petitioners have submitted a common reply dated 20.10.1992. After hearing the parties, by order dated 18.02.1997 the Deputy Commissioner confiscated 83 bags of rice and also the lorry bearing registration No. CNT- 8372.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the first respondent under Section 6C of the Act. The appellate authority, by order dated 01.08.2011 has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the order passed by the first and the second respondents.

5. Sri T.Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 83 bags of rice was purchased by the first petitioner from API and CCS Rice Mills and they were transporting the same to Siddeshwara Rice Mill for polishing the rice. He relied upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Khalimulla Khan vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1986 Kar.1641 to contend that release certificate need not be obtained for transporting the rice within the State.

Secondly, he contended that the Deputy Commissioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 6B of the Act. To substantiate this submission, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Menur Madhava Kamath & Co. And Others vs. State Of Mysore reported in 1970(1) Mys.L.J.143.

Thirdly, he contended that the second petitioner's lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 has been taken for hire by the first petitioner for transporting the rice bags and the respondent has no authority to confiscate the lorry under Section 6A of the Act. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner vs. Rudolph Fernandes reported in ILR 1988 Kar.1086.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State contended that as per the provisions of Section 6B of the Act notice has been issued to the petitioners. Pursuant to the notice, they have given a common reply. After considering the reply the order has been passed.

Secondly, she contended that it is the clear finding of the authority that the first petitioner has not produced any document to prove that he is the owner of 83 rice bags.

Thirdly, she contended that the second petitioner's lorry bearing registration No. CNT-8372 is also involved in illegal transportation of the rice bags. Therefore, the authority has rightly confiscated the lorry which is involved in transport