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

1998 Supreme(Cal) 163

High Court Of Calcutta
Basudeva Panigrahi
KHAN BROTHERS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. O.  12229  Of  1996
Decided On : 04/03/1998

Advocates Appeared:
J.N.Ram, KANIKA GUPTA, N.Ahmed, P.K.MUKHERJI, T.K.Majumdar

The State and its officers can be held liable for damages caused by their negligent acts, even in the exercise of sovereign functions, and Section 15 of the Essential Commodities Act does not provide protection for actions not done in good faith.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS - LIABILITY OF STATE AND OFFICERS - DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION - PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 15.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the illegal seizure of 1583 bags of levy cement from their godown by police authorities and subsequent negligence in maintaining safe custody, resulting in the cement turning into stone. They sought compensation, control price, and interest from the State and officials responsible.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the seized articles or their price if they were rendered useless due to deterioration. However, the question of whose default or negligence caused the damage required elaborate evidence and could not be determined in a writ petition.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation and damages for the loss of seized cement. 2. Whether the State and its officers were liable for the loss. 3. Whether Section 15 of the Essential Commodities Act provided protection to the State and its officers.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that the State could be held liable for the negligent acts of its officers, even in the exercise of sovereign functions. 2. The court found that the petitioners were entitled to compensation or the price of the seized cement if it was damaged due to the negligence of the State or its officers. 3. The court held that Section 15 of the Essential Commodities Act did not provide protection to the State or its officers if their actions were not done in good faith.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, but granted the petitioners leave to file a regular suit for compensation if they so desired, subject to the limitation period.

B. PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) -IN this case, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- (I) Declaring that the petitioners are entitled to get adequate compensation from the respondents including or only from the State of West Bengal for illegal, arbitrary and malafide act of seizure of 1583 bags of levy cement from the petitioners' godown on 15th June, 1985 by the Police Authorites of the Enforcement Branch of Government of West Bengal and their negligent conduct in not maintaining the safe custody during such seizure and also the negligent conduct of Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies) Alipore Sadar as also Police Authorities of the Enforcement Branch, Government of West Bengal in not disposing the entire seized stock expeditiously after the order dated 9th October, 1985 passed by the E. C. Collector, Alipore in 6a Proceedings being Misc. Case No. 28 of 1985. (ii) Declaring futher that the petitioners are entitled to get control price of Rs. 59. 90 Per bag for 1583 bags of levy cement illegally and arbitrarily siezed on 15th June, 1985 together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum thereon from the 15th June 1985 till the date of realisation from or payment by the State of West Bengal. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents, sub-ordinate servants to comply with the order dated 27th December, 1995 passed by the E. C. Collector, Alipore Sadar in Misc. Case No. 28 of 1985 the proceedings under 6a of the E. C. Act; (c) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents their agents, subordinate servants, to pay the compensation and also the control price towards 1583 bags of cement seized together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum thereon with effect from 15th June, 1985 to the petitioners till the payment thereof; (d) A writ in the nature Certiorari calling upon the respondents No. 10, 11 to certify and transmit the record of confiscation proceedings under 6a of the E. C. , Act being Misc. Case No. 28 of 1985 before this Hon'ble Court so that after perusing the same and after hearing the parties if deem fit and proper conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioners by directing the Payment of compensation, control price and and interest as prayed above. ;"

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is a sole proprietorship firm whereas petitioner No. 2 is its sole proprietor carrying on dealership business in levy cement. They have challenged the illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, malafide and malicious acts of the respondent authorities of Food and Supplies Directorate/department and Enforcement Branch of the Police. While dealing with non-levy cement business, they received 100 M. T. (2000 bags) of levy cement on 5. 5. 1985 and 6. 5. 1985. After delivery of the cement to the petitioner, Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies) issued an order permitting them to sell the above cement at the rate of Rs. 59. 90 per bag. Few days after getting the order for sale of cement, unfortunately, the respondent No. 6 and 7 who were the Inspectors of Police, Special Branch conducted search and seizure in the petitioners' godown and seized 1583 bags of cement falsely showing that there was a shortage of 21 bags of cement. After such seizure they prepared the seizure list of 1562 bags of cement and lodged FIR. at the local Police Station, vide Jaynagar P. S. , case No. 10 dated 15th June, 1985 under section 7 (i) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. After such seizure the respondent No. 6 and 7 had placed those cement bags under the Zimma of respondent No. 8 Abdul Matim Laskar.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a report of seizure of cement was, however, sent under section 6 (A) of the E. C. Act to the Collector and prayer was made therein for interim sale under section 6 (A) (2) of the Act and for direction to keep the sale proceed of the cement deposited with the treasury. They moved to the E. C. Collector for sale of the article on the ground that















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