SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Pat) 269

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.Shamsul Hasan and B.N.Sinha JJ.
Rajesh Trading Company
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3395 of 1987 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 25, 1987

The seizure and confiscation of the gram seeds were illegal and void ab initio because the gram seeds were not covered by any order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the petitioner did not require a license to deal in gram seeds.

Headnote:

CONFISCATION OF GRAM SEEDS - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - BIHAR FOODGRAINS DEALERS LICENSING ORDER, 1977 - BIHAR TRADE ARTICLES (LICENCES UNIFICATION) ORDER, 1984 - SEIZURE OF GRAM SEEDS - CONFISCATION ORDER - JURISDICTION - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - INTEREST ON SEIZED GOODS - PAYMENT OF PRICE OF SEIZED GOODS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a firm, entered into a contract with BISCOMAUN to supply gram seeds and peas seeds. The petitioner purchased the gram seeds from Uttar Pradesh and stored them in its godown. The authorities of the Supply Department raided the petitioner's premises and seized the entire stock of gram seeds on the allegation that they were not suitable for seeds and the supply amounted to a violation of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order. The petitioner challenged the seizure and confiscation of the gram seeds by filing a writ petition in the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the seizure and confiscation of the gram seeds were illegal and void ab initio. The Court found that the gram seeds were not covered by any order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and that the petitioner did not require a license to deal in gram seeds. The Court also found that the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, which came into operation before the seizure of the gram seeds, did not define wholesale and retail dealers or fix storage limits for gram seeds. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the delay in distributing the gram seeds to the farmers due to the negligence of the authorities.

Issues: 1. Whether the seizure and confiscation of the gram seeds were legal and valid. 2. Whether the petitioner was required to obtain a license to deal in gram seeds. 3. Whether the petitioner was liable for the delay in distributing the gram seeds to the farmers.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The seizure and confiscation of the gram seeds were illegal and void ab initio because the gram seeds were not covered by any order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the petitioner did not require a license to deal in gram seeds. 2. The Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, which came into operation before the seizure of the gram seeds, did not define wholesale and retail dealers or fix storage limits for gram seeds. Therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible for the delay in distributing the gram seeds to the farmers due to the negligence of the authorities.

Final Decision: The High Court quashed the impugned order of confiscation and directed the BISCOMAUN to pay the price of the seized gram seeds to the petitioner within fifteen days. The Court also directed the State Government to pay interest on the price of the seized gram seeds at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of payment.

Judgment

S.S.Hasan and B.N.Sinha JJ.

1. In the circumstances of this application and in view of the fact that the matter has been languishing since 1984, we felt that the matters should be heard and disposed of with the consent of the parties, at the admission stage itself. Consequently, adequate opportunity was granted to the State and other opposite party to file a counter affidavit, if any, which was filed only by Respondent No. 2. The matter has thus been heard and is being disposed of.

2. The petitioner firm seeks the protection of this Court against what has been described by it, as a completely illegal and unwarranted action of Respondent No. 2, the consequence of which is that it has suffered a heavy pecuniary loss and obstruction in its day to day business. The petitioner in response to the notice inviting tenders issued by the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (BISCOMAUN) for supply of gram seeds and peas seeds, submitted its offer which was accepted and contract was entered into between the petitioner and the BISCOMAUN and the petitioner was ordered for supply of 2000 quintals of gram seeds and 450 quintals of peas seeds by the BISCOMAUN by their letter dated 30-9-1984 (Annexure 1). In pursuance of this contract, over 1100 quintals of gram seeds is said to have been supplied to the BISCOMAUN and accepted and only 968.90 quintals remained to be supplied. These gram seeds, according to the petitioner, were purchased from various places in Uttar Pradesh and were being packed in bags of sizes and in the manner prescribed by the BISCOMAUN. While they were lying in the godown of the petitioner firm awaiting their delivery to BISCOMAUN, the premises of the petitioner was raided by the authorities of the Supply Department on 28-10-1984 and the entire stock of 968.90 quintals of gram seeds were seized on the allegation that they were not suitable for seeds and the supply amounted to violation of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, Usual steps then followed and criminal prosecution was launched and a confiscation proceeding was initiated against the petitioner firm.

3. In the midst of the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner firm moved this Court in C.W.J.C. 258 of 1984 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court constituted by Hon ble Nagendra Prasad Singh and Hon ble P. B. Prasad, JJ. on 14-12.1984 with the following observations :-

Having heard the parties we are of the opinion that it is only just and proper that the grams seized from the custody of the petitioners should be supplied to the Biscomaun to whom the petitioners were to supply and Biscomaun shall get the seeds properly examined by a competent authority before it is distributed to the farmers. We direct that during the confiscation proceeding the price of the 968.90 quintals of gram shall not be paid to the petitioners by the Biscomaun without an order from the District Magistrate, Patna passed in the confiscation proceeding. We further direct the petitioners to file that show cause before the District Magistrate, in pursuance of the notice under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by the 5th of January, 1985. It is expected that the learned District Magistrate, Patna, after hearing the petitioners shall dispose of the aforesaid confiscation proceeding at an early date.

It is made clear that if the Biscomaun finds the gram which have been seized unfit for supply to the terms then it shall keep the same in its godown and ultimately to be disposed of in accordance with the direction given by the learned District Magistrate in the confiscation proceeding.

4. Consequently, it now appears that the seized articles were handed over to BISCOMAUN and then a sample of the article was then sent to the Seed Analyst, State Laboratory, Bihar Patna, who reported vide Annexure 5/1 as follows :-

S. No. Lot No. Germination % Fresh/ Dead or Decay

Lab. Test Normal/ Hard ungerm



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top