Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 766
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya And Mr. Justice Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
AJAY GLASS WORKS - Respondent
C. A. N. 9086 Of 2005
Decided On : 12/04/2006
A.MITRA, ASIT BHATTACHARJEE, ATARUP BANERJEE, AVA ROY, BIMAL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, KISHORE DUTTA, P.C.Sen, PRATIK PRAKASH BANERJI, Swapan Kumar Banerjee, UDAYAN SEN
A writ court may legitimately decide not to entertain a writ application if it appears that disputed questions of fact cannot be effectively adjudicated by way of affidavit.
Headnote:
PRABUDDHA SANKAR BANERJEE, J.: This mandamus appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking the release of 525 metric tonnes of Grade-B steam coal allegedly seized from them in 1987. The petitioners claimed ownership of the coal and sought its return, alleging that it was illegally seized without proper documentation.
Fact of the Case:
In 1987, two trucks carrying coal were apprehended by the police and CISF during a raid on the petitioners' premises. The petitioners claimed that 544 MT of coal was seized, but the seizure list showed only 525 MT. A criminal case was initiated against the petitioners under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Essential Commodities Act. Subsequently, a confiscation proceeding was also initiated before the Collector under the Essential Commodities Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the petitioners had not established their ownership of the seized coal and that there was no evidence to show that the appellants, who were allegedly the custodians of the coal, had taken possession of it. The Court also noted that the petitioners had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay of 11 years in filing the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had established their ownership of the seized coal. 2. Whether the appellants were liable to return the seized coal to the petitioners. 3. Whether the petitioners' delay in filing the writ petition was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the petitioners had failed to prove their ownership of the seized coal and that there was no evidence to show that the appellants had taken possession of it. The Court also found that the petitioners' delay of 11 years in filing the writ petition was not justified and that they had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the return of the seized coal and that the appellants were not liable for its return.
( 1 ) THIS mandamus appeal at the instance of the appellants who were respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is against the order dated 23rd August, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in connection with w. P. No. 12466 (W) of 2004.
( 2 ) THE said writ application was brought by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against the present appellants and the proforma-respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with prayer for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents authorities to release 525 metric tonnes of Grade-B steam coal allegedly seized from the petitioners on 20th January, 1987 in connection with ranigunj Police Station Case No. 11 dated 20. 1. 1987. The writ petitioners also prayed for some other relief.
( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of the said writ application are as follows: - That on 20. 1. 1987, on the basis of a complaint lodged before the respondent No. 5, two trucks carrying coal were apprehended and consequently, a search was conducted jointly by the respondent No. 5 and cisf in the premises of the petitioner No. 1 which is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing glass. The petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm and the petitioner No. 3 is a limited Company and carries on business of manufacturing and sale of glass and glassware. At the time of raid on 20. 1. 1987, according to the petitioners, CISF along with the respondent No. 5 seized 544 MT of Grade-B steam coal from the premises of the petitioner No. 1 on the allegation that no valid paper could be produced for possession of the said amount of coal. Though 544 MT of coal were seized, the petitioners complained that in the seizure list, the amount of 525 MT was shown as the weight of the seized coal. On the basis of the same, a criminal case being ranigunj Police Station Case No. 11 dated 20. 1. 1987 under Sections 379/411 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 165a/147/337/427/353/506 of Indian penal Code along with 7 (i) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act was started against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and some other persons.
( 4 ) PURSUANT to the said Police case, one DEBGR case, namely, 4 of 1987, was started before the learned Special Judge at Asansol and a confiscation proceeding also commenced before the Collector under the essential Commodities Act thereby giving rise to E. C. Misc. Case No. 1 of 1987.
( 5 ) THE writ petitioners previously filed one writ application before the hon'ble Court which was numbered as Matter No. 668 of 1987. However, the said case was dismissed on 11. 02. 1992 by His Lordship, the Hon'ble Justice sushanta Chatterjee (as His Lordship then was ). As the I. O could not submit the charge-sheet within the stipulated period, the learned trial Judge on the basis of application by the writ petitioners discharged them as well as the other accused persons on 21. 6. 1993 as per the provisions of Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, the Collector by order dated 2. 3. 1994 dropped the confiscation proceeding and directed that the seized articles should be returned to its owner. According to the writ petitioners, the seized coal was given in zimma of the agent Bansra Colliery through mr. J. Banerjee who executed the zimmanama.
( 6 ) BEING armed with the order of the Collector, the writ petitioners approached the respondent No. 5 for return of the seized articles. As the seized articles could not be returned back to the writ petitioners they had come up with writ application with the prayers as stated above.
( 7 ) BY the order impugned, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application and directed the appellant No. 1 to return the entire stock of seized coal to the petitioners without any further delay and positively, within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order. The learned Single judge further directed that in the event any part or portion of the seized coal was not available, the General Manager, Eastern Coalf
