Back
BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Bally Jute Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jute Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issue of compliance with jute stock regulations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. importance of clear evidence for legal action. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. review of control measures against alleged hoarding. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. focus on pipeline stock versus consumption requirements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. evaluation of inspection processes and findings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. validity of criminal proceedings based on evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. conclusion leading to quashing of the fir. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Bivas Pattanayak, J.
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for cancellation, rescission, withdrawal and/or revocation of letter No. Jute (Mktg)/106/2015/ dated 4th February, 2016 issued by respondent no.2, Deputy Jute Commissioner, Office of the Jute Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and not to take any further action on the complaint/FIR lodged by respondent nos. 1 to 3 with the respondent no.6, Officer-in-Charge, Bally Police Station, Howrah being Bally P.S. Case No. 19/2016 dated 5th February, 2016 under Section 7 (i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. The brief fact of the case in nutshell is as
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
