@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.@mdashOn 25.9.2012, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings the following order was passed:
Petitioner an industrial entrepreneur obtained a certificate of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) dated 10.7.2007 from the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, whereafterwards, the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka, registered the petitioner''s institution as a small manufacturer of plastic products and the Central Excise Authority issued a registration certificate on 30.9.2008 for manufacturing of exercisable goods, following which, the Plastic Export Promotion Council issued a Registration-cum-Membership Certificate dated 23.10.2008. Petitioner having obtained a Sales Contract dated 28.1.2011, Annexure-E, from a buyer M/s. Safeya Saleh General Trading L.L.C., Dubai, for the supply of table rolls to be shipped by July, 1st week of 2011, in the process of manufacture of table rolls, the Health Officer of the respondent-Mysore City Corporation on a surprise inspection on 3.6.2011 seized 1.75 tones of table rolls from the petitioner industry, on the premise that it violated the provisions of the Plastic (Manufacture, Usage and Waste Management) Rules, 2009, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Hence, this petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, Sri H. C. Srivaramu, learned counsel for the respondent-MCC submits that the Rules do not in vest or provide for delegation of power on the Health Officer of the MCC to conduct inspection and seize plastic material, since under Rule 4(b) the enforcement of the provisions of the Rules are vested with the concerned Municipal Authority who is defined as Municipal Corporation under Rule 3(j) of the Rules. If that is so, then the entire action of seizer is null and void.
Question that arises for decision making is whether the seizer which is null and void, has occasioned violation of constitutional rights of the petitioner both under Rules 19 and 21 of the Constitution, in order to entitle the petitioner to damages and compensation?
At this stage, Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel submits that he would secure necessary instructions from the respondent-MCC over release of the goods.
List on 26.9.2012.
Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for the respondent-MCC submits that on a very verification from the godown, 40 bags of plastic rolls were found, which is said to have been kept in one location belonging to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of a seizure mahazar disclosing the quantity of plastic rolls seized submits that 600 k.gs of plastic rolls which were kept aside were handed over to the petitioner, as against its claim of 1.75 tons of seized material.
2. The seizure of movable property belonging to the petitioner, while carrying on its legitimate business, without recording the quantity of materials seized by preparing a mahazar, speaks volumes of the nature of business transacted by the Officers who effected the seizure, under the control of the Commissioner of the respondent-MCC. Yet again, the quantity of plastic rolls seized, though, according to the petitioner is 1.75 tons, nevertheless, relevant material to establish that quantity to be in its possession as on the date and point of time is not forthcoming from the pleadings. Thus, a serious dispute of facts as to the actual quantity of plastic rolls that were seized, cannot be conveniently adjudicated in this proceeding.
3. There can be no more dispute that the right to carry on a particular business, a fundamental right of the petitioner is impinged upon by the respondent-MCC and its Officers by effecting the seizure of the plastic rolls, meant for export, under the export order dated 28.1.2011, Annexure-E. Violation of fundamental right has serious consequence, hence calls for interference.
4. The Principal Secretary of Urban Development Authority is directed to hold an enquiry into the alleged seizure and record findings, including persons responsible for the same, and if found guilty, direct their removal from service or other commensurate punishment.
5. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. It is declared that the seizure of plastic rolls from the petitioner industry on 3.6.2011 is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, reserving liberty to the petitioner to institute an appropriate legal proceeding to recover the seized material, as well as liquidated damages. In the circumstances, respondent-MCC is directed to pay the petitioner costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be recovered from the salary of the Commissioner and the Officers concerned.
