ORDER :-These petitions in revision were filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi by different persons. These petitions were numbered in that Court as Criminal Revisions Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87 all of 1965. Sri Abu Saad, IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi accepted the contention made before him by the revisionists and proceeded to make reference to this Court in all the six cases by similar orders. All the six references made to this Court can, therefore, conveniently be disposed of by a common order.

2. In exercise of powers conferred by Clause 18 of the U.P. Food Grains (Control, Requisition and Distribution) Order, 1963, the Food Officers of the Superintendent of Police made raids in the houses of the petitioners as well as the houses of about 35 other persons. Such raids were made on or about 26th September 1964. Quantities of rice, paddy, wheat and etc. were seized from the houses of the petitioners and others, as it was found that the quantities seized were in excess of the quantity permitted to be retained by notification dated 18th August, 1964.

3. Aggrieved by that action of the Food Officers and the Superintendent of Police, the applicants as well as the other persons from whose possession foodgrain had been seized, filed 48 writ petitions in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reliefs that were claimed in those writ petitions were as follows :

"(a) That a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued, directing them to release the foodgrains which they have seized at once to the petitioner and other persons to whom it belongs.

(b) That a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to release that quantity of grain that is in excess of the exempted limit.

(c) That no further proceedings be taken against the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid order.

(d) That such other writ, order or direction be issued as the petitioners be in law entitled".

4. The main ground taken in those writ petitions was that the provisions of the order were arbitrary and discriminatory. On 17th November 1964, by a common judgement, Hon'ble B.C. Gupta, J., allowed all the writ petitions on the finding that seizure of the commodities was illegal. It was also directed that grains so seized be released forthwith.

5. Against the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State Government filed Special appeals in all the cases. These special appeals finally came for disposal before a Full Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court. That Full Bench by its judgement dated 11th August 1965, set aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge and held that the seizure of the grains was not illegal. So far as the appeals against the present petitioners were concerned those appeals were dismissed as infructuous. The ground for dismissing those appeals as infructuous was that the quantity of food grains which had been seized from their possession were meanwhile released as ordered by the learned Single Judge, prior to the passing of any stay order against the release of the foodgrains by the Full Bench. In relation to the appeal against the present petitioners, the Full Bench made the following order :-

"In this Special Appeal the food-grains stocks which had been seized were released in favour of the respondent under the orders of the learned Single Judge prior to any stay order having been passed. The appeal has, therefore, become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed with costs."

6. When the writ petitions were still pending in this Court, the police submitted separate charge sheets against the applicants on 30th October 1964 purporting to be under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules for contravening sub-clause (1)(a) of Clause 3(b) of the U.P. Food Grains (Control, Requisition and Distribution) Order. 1963, on the basis of the some facts which had led the filing of the writ petition in this Court.

7. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document