1971 (9) TMI 188 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of 76 bags of millets.
2. Validity of Clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965.
3. Whether Clause 5 is in excess of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
4. Whether Clause 5 violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of 76 Bags of Millets:
The petitioner, a licensed food grains dealer, had his goods seized by the police on suspicion of intending to transport them to Madras State. The petitioner challenged this seizure, arguing that it was illegal and requested the release of the goods and prevention of further action under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965.

2. Validity of Clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965:
The core issue was whether Clause 5 of the Order was valid under the powers conferred by Section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Clause 5 authorized police officers and other authorized persons to stop, search, and seize goods if they "suspect" a contravention of the Order.

3. Whether Clause 5 is in Excess of the Power Conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955:
The court examined Section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, which allows for search and seizure if the authorized person has "reason to believe" that a contravention has been or is about to be committed. The court noted that "reason to believe" is a stronger expression than "suspect," which merely indicates an initial stage of belief without sufficient cause. By using "suspect" instead of "reason to believe," Clause 5 granted unbridled and uncontrolled power, thus exceeding the authority provided by Section 3 of the Act.

4. Whether Clause 5 Violates the Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that Clause 5 violated his fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f). The court acknowledged that seizure deprives a person of this right and emphasized that such interference must be justified by sufficient grounds. The court did not need to conclusively address this issue as it found Clause 5 to be in excess of the powers conferred by the Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965, was in excess of the power granted to the Central Government by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court struck down Clause 5, rendering the seizure of the 76 bags of millets illegal. The Writ Petition was allowed with costs, and the seized goods were ordered to be returned to the petitioner. The question of whether Clause 5 violated Article 19(1)(f) was left open.