1. This Petition is directed against the common order dated 2-5-81, passed by the Sessions Judge Uttar Kannada, Karwar in Criminal Appeal Number 19/81 along with other appeals, dismissing the same as being not maintainable and confirming the order dated 31-3-1981 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Uttar Kannada Karwar in Number CSD-EOM-SR-34/80-81.
2. Brief facts of the case are :-
That on 2-3-1981, P.S.I. of Sirsi Market Yard conducted a surprise raid in Sirsi town and checked the accounts of the mill premises of the petitioner and on verification he found that the petitioner possessed 22 quintals of rice (Alur Sanna) 20 quintals of Raja Bhog, raw rice and five quintals of TI-41 raw rice in all 47 quintals in excess of the stock recorded in the accounts. The P.S.I. attached the said stock and gave the same to the safe custody of the opponent and also registered a case in crime in No. 16/81 of the said P.S. and submitted proposals to the higher authorities under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) and also prayed that the seized stock may be disposed to as it is a perishable commodity. The Deputy Commissioner after receipt of the said report passed an order dated 31-2-1981 holding that after perusal of the report of the PSI that he is of the opinion that the rice so attached was perishable in nature and to avoid further deterioration in the quality of the seized rice he through it fit to order to deliver the said 47 quintals of rice to Agricultural Produce and Marketing Processing and Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., Siris for distribution to the consumers on ration cards at Government rates through Fair Price Shops nominated by the Tahsildar, Sirsi and he also directed that the proceeds should be credited by the said Society within 15 days to the P.D. Account of the Deputy Commissioner under the head account '509 Capital Outlay Food and Nutrition (1) supply Scheme' and report the compliance together with the credit challan.
3. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge at Uttar Kannada in Criminal Appeal No. 19/81 who heard the said appeal along with other appeals filed by other persons from whom the rice had also been seized and passed the common order as aforesaid holding that the said appeal was not maintainable and accordingly rejected the same. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has challenged its legality and correctness in this Revision Petition.
4. It is not dispute before this court that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttar Kannada District was an order purported to be one under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955. The Deputy Commissioner has passed a preliminary order under the Act. There is no provision of law provided under the Act either to prefer an appeal or a revision against such an order. What is provided under the said Act is, the one as contemplated under section 6C of the Act against an order passed under S. 6A of the Act with regard to confiscation etc.
The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is an order already stated under Section 6A(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Mekka strenuously contended that there is no provision for appeal against the order passed under S. 6A(2) of the Act. He contended that when an appeal is provided under S. 6A by implication it follows that appeal also lies against such an order. The same contention was raised before the lower appellate Court which was rightly negatived. I am afraid that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. If that was the intention of the legislature it would have been made specifically clear that an order passed under S. 6A(2) of the Act is also appealable under S. 6C of the Act, and if that is so by implication it cannot be read what not intended by the legislature. Further, the petitioner is also not prejudiced in as much as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is only for the prohibition and to prevent further deterioration of the seized rice. He ordered the sale through the proper Society to the card holders at the controlled rates and thereafter to deposits the amount so realised to the account in question. If the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the case he is entitled to the amount in deposit. From that apart the legal position stated is also clear in this behalf, therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel that there is illegality in the impugned order and hence the finding of the Sessions Judge that no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 6A(2) of the Act cannot be interfered with.
5. In the result, for the reasons stated above there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. But however the petitioner is at liberty to approach and agitate in the proper forum to any of the reliefs that he is entitled to.
6. Petition dismissed.