JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 22.03.2023 | Date of Judgment : 27.04.2023 A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner calling in question the conduct and the procedure adopted by the Opposite Parties while conducting the seizure of the PDS commodities by the S.I. Gangapur Police Station and the petitioner has further challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order as well as the jurisdiction of the Collector, Ganjam in initiating the proceeding against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act on the basis of illegal seizure. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of notice under Annexure-4 to the writ application.

2. The back ground facts leading to filing of the present writ application is that the petitioner is an honest businessman having very good reputation in the locality and he is in the business of distribution of PDS commodities for last twenty years. The writ application further reveals that the petitioner has an unblemished career as a PDS retailer as he has not been implicated in any case relating to commission of any irregularity in the distribution of PDS commodities in the locality.

3. On 18.09.2011 at about 6.00 P.M., while the petitioner was coming with Kerosene Oil in a truck, the OIC of Gangapur P.S. stopped the said vehicle and seized the truck as well as Kerosene Oil on the ground that the petitioner could not produce proper documents. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner produced the documents in respect of 2000 liters of Kerosene, however, he could not produce documents in respect of another 1000 liters of Kerosene that was being transported. In the writ application, it has been further pleaded that one Bipra Charan Swain has purchased 1000 liters of Kerosene and due to heavy rain and bad weather and road condition, he was unable to shift such Kerosene Oil and accordingly decided to return the same.

4. Referring to clause-3 of the Control Order, 2008, it has also been stated in the writ application that the petitioner has not violated any guidelines and executive instructions issued by the Government. Furthermore, the petitioner, although, produced proper documents and stated before the OIC Gangapur P.S. that he has procured such Kerosene Oil from M/s. Gurumurty Oil Company and produced valid papers before the OIC, the OIC of Gangapur P.S. did not take any note of the same. It is also contended that on verification by police, M/s. Gurumurty Oil Company produced all the relevant documents for perusal. However, without considering the said documents, OIC, Gangapur P.S. was bent upon to seize and accordingly he had seized the Kerosene Oil that was being transported in the truck.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended before this Court that the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of the PDS Control Order, 2008. He further submitted that although the petitioner produced valid paper/documents along with money receipt, but the appellate authority without following the guidelines and without giving an opportunity of show cause to the petitioner, seized 3000 liters of Kerosene Oil belonging to the petitioner. It is also contended that the Collector, Ganjam issued a notice dated 19.10.2011 under Annexure-4 without application of mind. The said notice under Annexure-4 purported to be one under the provisions of the E.C. Act, is stated to be illegal, arbitrary and in furtherance of the mala fide intention of the Opposite Parties. He further contended that on the basis of such illegal report of the OIC, Gangapur P.S., the Collector, Ganjam without verifying the facts and without application of mind initiated an E.C. Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that although by the direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in CRLREV No.34 of 2011, seized vehicle has been released by the police, however, the Collector, went ahead for issuance of notice and continued