THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 1328 of 2004 Dated: 12-7-2011 Between B.Govindappa …Appellant And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur Dist. And others …Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. He is carrying on business in edible oil seeds. On 17-4-1988 when groundnut pods were being unloaded in his business premises, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department inspected the godown, seized the stocks available and registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for violation of the provisions of the Act. After due process of issue of show-cause notice, receipt and consideration of the explanation, the 2nd respondent passed an order for confiscation of 80% of the seized stock and after recording a finding that the charges leveled against the appellant for violation of the provisions of the Act are proved imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- as well. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent who modified the penalty to one of confiscation of 50% of the stock. Assailing the order of the 3rd respondent, the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge has recorded that in the inspection of the petitioner’s premises on 17-4-1988, 12 bags of groundnut each weighing 40 bags, 20 tins of sunflower refined oil, each weighing 15 Kgs and 252 bags of coriander each weighing 40 Kgs. were available in the lorry which was unloaded in the godown for which no entries in the stock register were found and the petitioner-appellant had also confessed about doing business of purchase of groundnut and coriander from nearby ryots; transporting the same to Chellikera of Karnataka State without documents and some times based on contrived vouchers issued by the ryots. The learned single Judge also observed that from the order of primary and appellate authority, the appellant was seen maintaining a small exercise note book recording entries sporadically for the periods 22-1-1988, 19-3-1988, 28-1-1988 and 30-3-1988; the sale bill book was also maintained only up to 30-3-1988; and the purchase bill book up to 27-1-1988, whereas the inspection was conducted on 17-4-1988. The appellant could not persuade the learned single Judge that the order of the 3rd respondent-appellate authority modifying the punishment imposed by the primary authority and thus directing confiscation of 50% of the stocks seized, was disproportionate to the unlawful conduct of the petitioner and proved by due process under the provisions of the Act. We are not persuaded either. There are no merits. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 12th July, 2011 ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J GRR