IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980, provided a grace period for obtaining a license, which rendered the seizure of goods premature under the Essential Commodities Act.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Appeal No. 93/2016 whereby, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the District Collector, Bikaner in Case No.31/2015 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.2015, an inspection was conducted by the enforcement team at the premises of LTC Commercial Co Pvt Ltd and upon inspection, it was alleged that 1878.36 quintal of gram was stocked at the premises. It was alleged that the respondent firm failed to present any stock registers, bill books etc. Accordingly, the stock of grams was seized being in violation of provisions of Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980.

3. In pursuance of seizure proceedings, an application under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was filed before the District Collector, Bikaner praying for confiscation of the seized grams.

4. The District collector vide order dated 10.05.2016 allowed the application filed by the State and directed to confiscate 1878.36 quintal of seized grams and deposit the value of seized grams in the Government treasury.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.05.2016, the respondent firm preferred a criminal appeal being Appeal No. 93/2016 before the court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner. The learned Sessions Judge, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent firm and set aside the order dated 10.05.2016 and it was held that the proceedings of seizure were carried out on 01.11.2015 whereas, the amendment in Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 came to be amended vide notification published in the official gazette on 20.10.2015 wherein, the expression “Licensing of Dealers” was substituted with “Licensing of dealers and Producers” and after existing last proviso new proviso was added that the dealer and producer of pulses shall obtain a license within fifteen days of commencement of this order. Thus, the seizure proceedings were premature as the firm was entitled to seek the license for the gram to be stored at its ware house till 15 days from the date of order dated 20.10.2015.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner State argued that the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent firm was misconceived as a remedy of filing revision petition against order passed by the District Collector was available with the respondent firm. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in entertaining the appeal filed by the respondent firm. It is further argued that order passed by the District collector is civil in nature and criminal appeal was not at all maintainable. It is argued that the respondent firm had violated the conditions of the license, therefore, the proceedings undertaken by the department so also the confiscation of seized gram is absolutely legal and justified. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 may be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has concealed the fact that it had already preferred a writ petition before this Court against the impugned order being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2089/2019 and same was dismissed in default. It is argued that after dismissal of the said appeal way back in the year 2019, the revision petition challenging the same order has been filed in the year 2023 without any explanation of delay on frivolous grounds. It is further argued that as per notification dated 24.01.1998 published in the official gazette, the State Government has appointed District and Sessions Judge of every District to be an appellate authority as prescribed under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and any person aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector under Section 6A of the Act can prefer an appeal under Section 6C of