Jeyaraj vs. The Special Tahsildar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ragul Traders, a partnership firm dealing in crackers and an assessee under the GST Act, had its premises sealed by respondents 1 and 2 on October 19, 2023. The action followed an inspection where the petitioner was accused of storing excess quantities of crackers beyond the licensed limit. A case was registered under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, and the petitioner was released on bail. The petitioner submitted a representation on November 22, 2023, requesting the unsealing of the premises and the return of the seized crackers. As the representation remained unconsidered, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to unseal the premises and hand over the crackers. The District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate, who issued the license, was suo-motu impleaded as the third respondent.

Held

The Court, considering the limited scope of the prayer and without delving into the merits of the case, directed the petitioner to file an affidavit of undertaking before the District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, within 10 days of receiving the order. The District Revenue Officer was directed to consider this undertaking and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation. Upon obtaining the undertaking, the petitioner would be permitted to remove the articles for onward sale or disposal, after signing relevant documents like the inventory. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the Government Children Home. Upon proof of payment, the premises would be de-sealed. The Court explicitly stated that the petitioner must face the criminal proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the unsealing of the petitioner's premises and the return of seized crackers, considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2023? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the legal provisions under which the action was taken and that their representation seeking the removal of the seal and return of crackers had not been considered. They relied on a previous order of the High Court dated 06.11.2023, dealing with similar facts where the petitioner was facing trial. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent submitted that the District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate is the competent authority to consider the matter as the license was obtained from them. They contended that the petitioner had used the license for storing more than the permitted quantity of crackers, which was limited to 100 kilograms of manufacture fireworks of Class 7, Division 2, Sub Division 2 and 500 kilograms of Chinese Crackers/Sparklers. The FIR indicated the petitioner possessed more than the permitted quantity (200 bundles of crackers).