9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (9) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965 is in excess of the power conferred upon the Central Government by S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955. The petitioner also contended that the seizure was illegal and accordingly prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the goods and not to take any action against him under clauses 4 and 5 of the said order. 3. In their counter the respondents opposed the writ petition. The respondents submitted that clause 5 of the said order was neither vague nor in excess of the delegated power, nor inconsistent with Section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Act contemplates no proof before search and seizure but only reasonable belief. The order itself has been rescinded and there is no need to go into the question of the validity of clause 5 of the Order, which has been rescinded. 4. The short question that arises for our decision in this Writ Petition is, whether Cl. 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965, hereinafter called the Order, is in excess of the power conferred on Government of India by Section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 5. Although Sri Babulu Red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or receptacle used or intended to be used for the export or transport of any coarse grains; (ii) Enter and search and authorise any person or enter and search any place; (iii) Seize or authorise the seizure of any article in respect of which he suspects that any provision of this Order has been, is being or is about to be contravened, along with the packages, coverings or receptacles in which such article is found or the animals, vehicles, vessels, boats or conveyances used in carrying such articles and thereafter take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of the packages, coverings, or receptacles, animals, vehicles, vessels, boats or conveyances so seized, in a court and for their safe custody pending such production. (2) x x x x x 7. It was argued by Sri Babulu Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that clause 5 (iii) of the Order is had on two grounds: (1) it is in excess of the powers conferred on the Central Government by Section 3 of the Act, and (2) it is violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner which is guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India. By the use of the word susp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... function or state, the word, in its ordinary sense, has been defined as meaning actual conclusion arrived at from external sources after weighing probabilities, conclusion of the mind as to the existence of a fact, conviction of the truth of given proposition or an alleged fact upon grounds insufficient to constitute positive knowledge or partial assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; ..................................... conviction of the mind founded on evidence that a fact exists that an act was done, that a statement is true . In K. J. Aiyer's 'Manual of Law Terms and Phrases' at page 510 the phrase 'reason to believe' is explained thus: A person is said to have reason to believe a thing if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise . 12. Similarly in Prem's Judicial Dictionary the meaning given to the phrase reason to believe which is found at page 1377 is: A person has reason to believe under Section 26, I. P. C. if he has sufficient cause to believe the thing but not otherwise . 13. The object of the Essential Commodities Act is to provide, in the interests of the general public, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... travention of the Act has been or is about to be committed, the order made under the power given by the Act, says that the initial or the first degree or step be taken into account by dispensing with other steps or degrees for coming to the conclusion that a contravention has been or is about to be committed. Certainly clause 5 of the Order goes far beyond the power conferred on it by Section 3 of the Act. 16. We will then consider the decision cited before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 17. Our attention has been invited to the following passage occurring in paragraph 8 at page 1562 in the case of Pukhraj v. D. R. Kohil, 1983 (13) ELT 1360 (SC) . Then the other fact on which the reasonable belief can be founded is the suspicious circumstances of the appellant's journey. 18. In Badri Prasad v. Collector, Central Excise, AIR 1971 SC 1170 it was contended that the provisions for search as contained in Section 58(1) which allowed any Gold Control Officer authorised by Administrator to enter and search any business premises merely if he had any reason to suspect that any provision of the Act was being or was about to be contravened, was contrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contravened or about to be contravened. There can be no doubt about the highly arbitrary character of the powers conferred for search and seizure. Clearly the occasion does not warrant such drastic powers, leave alone the question that the powers conferred are in excess of the delegated authority to issue order. With those observations the learned Judge struck down clauses 4 and 5 of the Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966 as invalid, both on the ground that they were in excess of the power and also on the ground that it was violative of Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India. The Chief Justice who delivered a separate judgment also agreed with Natesan, J., in striking down the above clauses. In the exercise of powers by an authorised person to order seizure of property, admittedly belonging to a citizen and to which he has got a fundamental right to hold under Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, there is bound to be some element of arbitrariness because the person who order seizure has no positive knowledge and is not absolutely certain that the provisions of the Act have been or about to be contravened. The use of the words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down similar clause in the order made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers derived by it under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, we have no hesitation in striking down clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order 1965 as being in excess of power granted to the Central Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 24. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government that 'suspicion' is one of the grounds for coming to reasonable belief may be correct, but in that sense it may not be contrary or inconsistent with Section 3(2)(j) of the Act. But we are not striking down clause 5 on the ground that it is inconsistent with Section 3(2)(j) of the Act, but on the ground that it is in excess of the power granted to the Central Government. Suspicious circumstances in a given case may lead to a reasonable belief, but suspicious circumstances cannot be equated with 'suspects'. We, therefore, hold that the observations of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Collector Central Excise. AIR 1971 SC 1170 do not help or advance the argument of the learned counsel. 25. In the view that we hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
