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

2020 Supreme(Pat) 757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
C.W.J.C. No. 4479 of 2020
(30.4.2020)
Md. Jahangir – Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri.
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pratap.

Headnote:

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Sections 6-A to 6-E and 7 – Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Petition for release of seized wheat – There had been diversion of FCI and SFC subsidized grains for the purpose of black-marketing – E.C. Act was enacted to safeguard public interest considering it necessary in interest of general public to control production, supply and distribution and trade and commerce in certain commodities through legislation – Section 6-A of E.C. Act confers discretionary power on Collector to confiscate seized essential commodity if seizure is on account of contravention for violation of an order made under Section 3 of E.C. Act – There is no provision of release of commodity so seized under Section 6-A of E.C. Act, pending confiscation proceeding – Collector does not have authority to release commodity even after confiscation proceedings are over – Whenever any essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6-A of E.C, Act, Collector has no power to order release of commodity in favour of owner – Section 6-A of E.C. Act does not empower Collector to give an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation of essential commodity, fine not exceeding market value of commodity at the date of seizure, as in case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance seized along with essential commodity – Order for release of essential commodity may be passed by High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India even during confiscation proceeding, but only when it is established that procedure prescribed in law has been completely flouted or when there is complete violation of procedure prescribed for confiscation or when no opportunity of hearing is given to offender concerned – Release of goods seized should not normally be ordered in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, even though powers under Article 226 are wide and unravelled by any limitation – It is only in rare and exceptional cases that such a direction would be issued – Court would not go into disputed questions of fact for the purpose of release of any commodity – If seizure is wholly outside provision of Control Order or E.C. Act, order for release of commodity can be passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India – No case for issuance of mandamus for release of bags containing wheat during pendency of confiscation proceeding is made out – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22 to 26)

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – The instant writ petition having been found extremely urgent by Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been posted before me under his orders for hearing via video conferencing.

2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to release 2073 bags of wheat, which were seized in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 124 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘E.C. Act’) in his favour and in case of decay/damage of the wheat kept in those bags, to make payment of the proceeds thereof to him in cash.

3. Mirganj P.S. Case No. 124 of 2019 was registered by the Officer-in-Charge of Mirganj Police Station on the basis of a written report submitted by one Md. Imdadul Haque, the Block Supply Officer, Dhamdaha wherein he has alleged that on 15.09.2019 at about 10.30 p.m. he had received telephonic information from the Officer-in- Charge of Mirganj Police Station that illegally procured wheat is being loaded on trucks from the residential premises of the petitioner situated in village Mir Millick falling within Rangpura panchayat. On receipt of the aforesaid information, the Block Supply Officer along with the police party rushed to the village Mir Millick and found that a truck bearing registration no. BR11G-5721 loaded with bags of wheat was parked outside the premises of the petitioner but the driver or the loaders (workers) were not found present near the truck. He also found three trucks loaded with bags of wheat in the premises of Bhaiya Jee Petrol Pump near Dharmkanta. On seeing the police party, the truck drivers fled away. Thereafter, the godown of the petitioner was inspected from where also 129 bags of wheat were recovered, which had the seal of Food Corporation of India (for short ‘FCI’) and State Food Corporation (for short ‘SFC’). On being asked to produce relevant papers to justify the storage of wheat bags, the petitioner failed to produce stock register and sale and purchase register. On enquiry regarding the trucks found in the premises of Bhaiya Jee Petrol Pump, the petitioner admitted that the wheat bags loaded on those trucks belong to him and were being sent to different destinations for sale. On inspection of the wheat bags loaded on the trucks, it was found that they also bore the seal of FCI and SFC.

4. In the concluding portion of the written report, the informant has alleged that the seal on the wheat bags made it apparent that there had been diversion of FCI and SFC subsidized grains for the purpose of black-marketing.

5. It would appear from the pleadings of the petitioner that the four trucks loaded with 2073 bags containing wheat weighing 1291.10 quintals were seized and handed over to the Assistant Godown Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation on certain conditions.

6. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seized wheat may be damaged in course of time. Hence, the same ought to be released in favour of the petitioner. He has further contended that the petitioner is a private person having no connection with any Public Distribution System shop and by his occupation he deals in selling of different types of grains purchased from the local cultivators. He submitted that the petitioner had stored the seized wheat in order to sell it in the open market. He has further contended that the petitioner is legally entitled for the release of the aforesaid seized wheat and the proceeds thereof and the search and seizure of commodities made by the police on the basis of information of the Block Supply Officer are wholly without jurisdiction. He also contended that if the prayer of the petitioner is not allowed by this Court, the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

7. On query made by the Court, Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that a confiscation proceeding in respect of the seized whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top