IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because, a property/vehicle is liable to be confiscated, it should not be released pending adjudicatory process is not a reasonable or justifiable ground for refusing the interim custody of the vehicle seized.

JUDGMENT

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the 1st Respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Mini van vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 9AD3334 seized by the 2nd Respondent on 25.04.2013.

2. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is the owner of Ashok Leyland Mini Pickup van vehicle bearing Registration No. KL9AD3334. According to the Petitioner, the said vehicle was hired by one Prakash to load goods on 25.4.2013. It is the case of the Petitioner that while loading the aforesaid goods, the 2nd Respondent who has come on the way, seized the vehicle and goods, notwithstanding the fact that the documents relating the vehicle have been produced. It appears that a First Information Report No.145/2013 has been registered by the C.B.C.I.D. Police, Pollachi on 25.4.2013 against Al to A3, in respect of alleged offences under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. It comes to be known that after seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner made a written representation to the 2nd Respondent on 2.5.2013 requesting for the release of vehicle in issue.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that recently the Government of Tamil Nadu Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department has issued instructions vide G.O. Letter No.20669/Gl/96/1, dated 12.7.1996 in directing the District Collectors to release the vehicle seized under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act within two days of written representation made by the concerned authorities. However, no orders have been passed by the authorities concerned, based on the representation made by the Petitioner dated 2.5.2013.

5. It is to be pointed out that vehicle is meant for user and the owner ought not to be deprived of such user. If the vehicle is not put into use it is likely to rot and rust. Merely because, a property/vehicle is liable to be confiscated, it should not be released pending adjudicatory process is not a reasonable or justifiable ground for refusing the interim custody of the vehicle seized.

6. At this stage, this Court worth recalls the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal and another1, wherein it is held as follows:

“Section 6A empowers confiscation of the seized essential commodity, the package, covering and receptacle in which the essential commodity was found and the animal, vehicle or other conveyance in which such essential commodity was carried. The words may order confiscation’ convey that the power is discretionary and not obligatory. Sub-section (2) thereof confers a special power to deal with any essential commodity which, in the opinion of the Collector is subject to speedy and natural delay or it is otherwise expedient in public interest to be disposed of in the manner indicated therein. Section 6A, therefore, merely confers power of confiscation and not the power of release, disposal, distribution etc., except to the limited extent permitted by sub-sec.(2) thereof.”

Further, in the aforesaid decision, it is held as under:

“The word ‘release’ is preceded by the words ‘possession, delivery and disposal’ and followed by the word ‘distribution’. The setting and context in which the word ‘release’ is used makes it clear that it is not used in the sense of ‘return’. In the first place it would completely defeat the purpose and object of the Act if the essential commodity seized for suspected contravention of the order made under Section 3 is returned to the owner or person from whom it was seized even before the confiscation proceedings were completed. Such an intention cannot be inscribed to the Legislature. Secondly, it is not possible to believe that the legislature would confer unqualified and unrestricted power to return the essential commodity to the owner or the person from whose possession it was seized before a decisio