Back
1989 Supreme(Pat) 158
PATNA HIGH COURT
Binodanand Singh and B.N.Agrawal JJ.
Dharmadeo Yadav
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 215 of 1984 ;
Decided On : APRIL 20, 1989
A Collector is required to conduct an inquiry in a confiscation proceeding under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Headnote:
CONFISCATION OF FOODGRAINS - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - SEC. 6A, 6B - BIHAR FOODGRAINS DEALERS LICENSING ORDER, 1967 - STORAGE LIMIT OF RICE FOR RETAIL DEALERS - CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP BY THIRD PARTIES - PROCEDURE FOR CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS - INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 6B(1)(C) - POWERS OF COLLECTOR DURING INQUIRY - AMENDMENT OF SEC. 6A BY BIHAR ACT IX OF 1978 - JUDICIAL NATURE OF CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Mahadeo Sah and Dharmadeo Sah, claimed ownership of 18 bags of foodgrains seized from the premises of a licensed dealer, M/s. Laxman Jee Sudama Jee. The Collector confiscated the entire stock, including the petitioners' claimed articles, without considering their claim on the ground that the licensee-firm was storing rice beyond the permissible limit. The petitioners challenged the confiscation order and the appellate order confirming the same.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Collector erred in not considering the petitioners' claim and in refraining from conducting an inquiry in the confiscation proceeding. It interpreted Section 6B(1)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to require a Collector to make an inquiry in a confiscation proceeding, giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The Court also held that the amendment of Section 6A by the Bihar Essential Commodities (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1977 (Bihar Act IX of 1978) reinforced this interpretation by deeming confiscation proceedings to be judicial proceedings and granting the Collector the same powers as a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector was justified in confiscating the petitioners' claimed articles without considering their claim? 2. Whether the Collector was required to conduct an inquiry in the confiscation proceeding? 3. Whether the amendment of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by Bihar Act IX of 1978 affected the interpretation of Section 6B(1)(c)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Collector was not justified in confiscating the petitioners' claimed articles without considering their claim because Section 6B(1)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 requires a Collector to give the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 2. The Court held that the Collector was required to conduct an inquiry in the confiscation proceeding because the expression "giving reasonable opportunity of being heard" in Section 6B(1)(c) requires an inquiry in which both parties can lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. 3. The Court held that the amendment of Section 6A by Bihar Act IX of 1978 reinforced the interpretation of Section 6B(1)(c) by deeming confiscation proceedings to be judicial proceedings and granting the Collector the same powers as a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ application, quashed the order of confiscation and the appellate order confirming the same, and directed the Collector to dispose of the confiscation proceeding in accordance with law after giving opportunity of leading evidence to the State, the petitioners, and the licensee-firm.
B.N.AGRAWAL, J.
1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 8-8-1983 passed by the respondent-Collector, contained in Annexure-I, by which he has confiscated 106.355 Quintals of foodgrains and the order dated 17-2-1984 passed in an appeal confirming the same, contained in Annexure-2.
2. The short facts for disposal of this application are that on 27-2-1979 the respondent-District Supply Officer along with other inspected the business premises of the firm M/s. Laxman Jee Sudama Jee, which was a retail-dealer having been granted a licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order) found certain irregularities and seized 94-89 Quintals of rice 11.465 Quintals of pulses besides other grains which are not covered by the Licensing Order. Thereafter, a criminal prosecution has launched against Sudama Jee, Proprietor of the aforesaid licensee firm and the seizure of the foodgrains was reported to the respondent Collector, who on receipt of the report initiated a confiscation proceeding u/s. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the aforesaid licensed dealer had committed various irregularities.
3. Upon service of notice of the confiscation proceeding, Sudama Jee, Proprietor of the aforesaid firm M/s. Laxman Jee Sudama Jee, filed show cause stating therein, inter alia, that out of the stocks seized, namely, 106.355 Quintals, 8 bags of rice and one bag of pulse belonged to the petitioner-Mahadeo Sah and 9 bags of rice belonged to petitioner Dharmadeo Sah. It was stated on behalf of the licensee-firm that the aforesaid stock of 18 bags, which was about 18 quintals, had been purchased by both the petitioners, who are petty dealers, from agriculturists and they had kept it in the premises of the Licensee-firm, as the market had not yet started in Aranda Bazar. According to it, if the aforesaid 18 bags of foodgrains are deducted out of 106.355 Quintals of the seized articles, in that event, the licensee-firm was storing the foodgrains within 100 quintals, which is within the permissible limits as such, there was no violation.
4. Thereafter, the petitioners entered appearance in the confiscation proceeding and they filed a petition before the Collector claiming the aforesaid articles and took a defence as disclosed on behalf of the licensee-firm. Both the petitioners also file their own affidavits besides affidavit of two other persons, namely, Mahabir Sah and Raghoji in support of their claim.
5. The respondent-Collector was of the view that the storage limit of rice by a retail dealer carrying on business in accordance with the Licensing Order was 76 quintals and even if the quantity of foodgrains claimed by the petitioner is excluded, the licensee firm was storing the stock of rice in excess of the limit of 75 quintals and therefore, the articles were liable to be confiscated. The respondent-Collector, accordingly, refrained from deciding the claim of the petitioners and passed the order of confiscation relating to the seized articles belonging to the petitioners as well.
6. It appears that when an appeal was taken by the petitioners against the aforesaid order of confiscation, the appellate authority has upheld the same observing that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their claim. The appellate authority in agreement with the respondent-Collector, was of the view that even if the articles claimed by the petitioners are excluded, the licensee-firm would be deemed to be storing rice beyond the storage limit. Hence, this writ application before this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of the writ application has raised three points; firstly, that the storage limit of rice under the provisions of the Licensing Order for a retail-dealer was not 75 quintals rather the same was 100 quintals; secondly, the appellate authority was not justified in throwing
