Both these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as the question that falls for consideration is one and the same.

The petitioners are the owners of vehicles, which were also seized due to their involvement in illegal transportation or intended transportation illegally of scheduled/essential commodities meant for public distribution as the case may be. Section 6-A (1)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 empowers apart from seizure of any essential commodity, pursuant to an order passed under Section 3 of the Act, any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity also to be seized and later on, if the offence is held established, can be confiscated as well to the State. The second proviso incorporated to sub-section (1) is relevant and it reads as under:

“Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.”

The second proviso therefore, makes it clear that the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance deployed for the purpose of illegal transportation of the essential commodities, before confiscation, can be provided an option to pay a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. It is therefore, crucial to understand that the owner of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance could be a different person from the owner of the scheduled or essential commodities, which have also been seized. Therefore, providing an option to him to pay up fine in lieu of confiscation has been contemplated. The statute has also taken care to regulate the quantum of fine amount by specifying the words “a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity”. From usage of these expressions, the statute-maker tried to regulate the exercise of discretion for imposition of fine by the competent authority. The fine that can be imposed can be anything less but in no case it shall be in excess of the market price at the date of the seizure of the essential commodity. For determining the market price, the date of seizure becomes the crucial and relevant date. In other words, as there could be considerable time gap between the date of seizure and the order for confiscation, to avoid any such ambiguity in the matter of imposition of fine, the statute-maker directed the date of seizure of the essential commodities to be taken as the date relevant for determination of the fine amount, but not the date on which the confiscation per se could be ordered. It is one thing to prescribe the relevant date for reckoning, but it is another aspect to determine the market value. Market value to be determined is obviously of the animal or the vehicle or the vehicle or other conveyance. It does not mean the market value of the essential commodities transported or intended to be carried. Because, such commodities are ordered to be confiscated to the State and the question of releasing them to the transporter would not arise.

It may not be very difficult to analyze the contingent situations that might arise in two different circumstances. Let us assume that a new truck, which is valued at Rs.5 lacs, is deployed to carry the essential/scheduled commodities, which have been seized, and later on sought to be confiscated, the value of which commodities was more than Rs. 5 lacs. Let us put their value at Rs.6 lacs. If the owner of the truck were to be given an option to pay Rs.6 lacs, representing the value of confiscated commodities, in lieu of confiscation of his truck worth