1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.704 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 K.M.G.Traders, Rep. by it's Proprietor, M.Ganesan, S/o.Manickam, No.15/1, Chettikulam Street, Natham, Dindigul District. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department (Civil Supplies), Madurai. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Ceretiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.Ku.Po.7/89987/2010 dated 13.12.2010 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, GA ORDER The petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated by the first respondent invoking the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The petitioner is a trader and supplier of broken rice to poultry farms all over Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is an assessee before the Commercial Tax Department. 3. While the matters stood thus, 190 bags of broken rice, unfit for human consumption, were transported by him in a Lorry bearing No.TD 1 7797 The said lorry along with the rice was seized by the second respondent on 01.11.2010. The first respondent issued a notice under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, proposing to conduct an enquiry in the matter. Being aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The proceedings under challenge is a statutory proceedings. The first respondent has initiated the proceedings under Section 6(B) of the EC Act It is open to the petitioner to submit their response before the said authority. The notice cannot be quashed in the manner suggested by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view no interference is called for in the said proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the broken rice is now in the custody of the first respondent and as such, the petitioner should be permitted to take custody of the rice. 6. The seized rice has already been produced by the second respondent before the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach only the first respondent. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit an application regarding the release of the broken rice within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of filing any such application, the first respondent shall consider the same on merits and as per law, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of two weeks thereafter. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(W) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department (Civil Supplies), Madurai. +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.5456 +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathiroy, Advocate SR.No.5300 W.P.(MD)No.704 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 10.02.2011 rj2 PA/25.02.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/