ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside order dated 15.02.2019 (Anneuxre-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (the respondent no. 2) in Misc. Case No. 2/2018 whereby the petitioner’s Tanker bearing registration no. JH-17D- 8720 has been confiscated under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, “the Act, 1955”). Further prayer has been made for quashing judgment dated 07.05.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed upholding the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the application of Block Supply Officer, Nirsa, an F.I.R. being Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No. 252 of 2015 was lodged on 15.09.2015 under Section 7 of the Act, 1955 against the owner, i.e., the petitioner herein, driver and helper of the said tanker alleging that the same was illegally carrying 20,000 liters of blue kerosene oil which was intercepted by the police and was subsequently seized. Though the petitioner was not present at the time of alleged occurrence, his name was inserted in the FIR only on the ground that he happened to be the owner of the said tanker.

3. It is further submitted that vide deed of agreement dated 01.09.2015, the said tanker was given by the petitioner to one Krishna Singh to ply the same on rental basis for six months and the petitioner was not involved in direct operation of the said tanker. It was stipulated in the agreement itself that Krishna Singh would operate the tanker in question for the said period with effect from 01.09.2015 who would be liable for carriage, transportation, accident, claims as well as any criminal/civil case arising out of plying the said tanker. It was also mentioned in the said agreement that in lieu of plying the said tanker, the petitioner would be paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. Hence, as per the agreement, the petitioner had no control over day-to-day running of the said tanker.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the driver and helper of the said tanker were granted regular bail vide order dated 08.12.2015 passed in B.A. No. 9141 of 2015 whereas Krishna Singh was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 05.05.2016 passed in A.B.A. No. 932 of 2016 by this Court. In course of investigation, it surfaced that after execution of the said agreement, the vehicle in question was being operated by Krishna Singh particularly at the time of interception of the said vehicle by the police on 15.09.2015 and thus, final form was submitted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, vide order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No. 252/2015 was dropped as against the petitioner.

5. It is also submitted that pursuant to seizure of the said tanker, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner which was replied by him on 29.03.2016 stating that the said tanker was being operated by Krishna Singh and he had no knowledge about the business run by Krishna Singh. However, the respondent no. 2, vide order dated 16.12.2016, passed the order of confiscation of the said tanker in Confiscation Case No. 06/2015 in terms with Section 6-A (Bihar Amendment) of the Act, 1955. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal being Confiscation Appeal No. 01/2017 which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad vide judgment dated 29.03.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3059 of 2017 challenging the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Confiscation Case No. 06/2015 as well as the judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Confiscation Appeal No. 01/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by this