Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13311 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Bachchu Sao S/O Late Mahavir Sao R/O Village- Usas Devra,Police Station- Konch, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Supply, Govt. Of Bihar At Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya At Gaya 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, District- Gaya 4. The Block Supply Officer, Konch, District- Gaya 5. The Officer-In-Charge Police Station- Barachati, Distt.- Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amar Nath Singh Mr. Binay Kumar Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N. Hoda Khan S.C.18 Ms. Babita Kumari, A.C. to S.C.18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 4 26-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner had originally come to this Court for a direction to quash the seizure of 262 quintals of rice and 83 quintals of wheat which have arbitrarily been supplied by the Block Supply Officer, Konch, Gaya under clause 30 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, for which a criminal case has also been registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, being Konch P.S. Case No.129 dated 29.06.2012, with a further prayer to release the seized rice and
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.13311 of 2012 (4) dt.26-09-2013 2 wheat which are lying in open space and are highly perishable in nature. Subsequently, on a show cause notice dated 29.9.2012 being issued to the petitioner as to why seized wheat be not confiscated, the petitioner challenged the same by filing an interlocutory application which he has been permitted to do. So far as the confiscation proceeding is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice dated 29.9.2012 does not spell out any of the grounds on which wheat and rice seized are proposed to be confiscated and is, thus, in violation of Section 6 (B) of the E.C. Act.
Legal Reasoning
learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and another: 2009 (4) PLJR 310. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has already filed his reply to the show cause and Patna High Court CWJC No.13311 of 2012 (4) dt.26-09-2013 3 thus there is no case of quashing the show cause. It is further submitted by him that even if the show cause notice is quashed, confiscation proceedings remain and a liberty may be granted to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice to comply with the provisions of Section 6-B of the Act. It is also submitted that since the confiscation proceedings are pending, the seized food grains ought not to be released. It is contended by him that within 15 days of the seizure, the petitioner has directly approached this Court, although he was fully aware of the fact that the matter is pending before the criminal court and any direction for release of the goods ought to have been sought in the first instance before the Court below. On a consideration of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view that so far as show cause notice dated 29.9.2011 is concerned, the same has to be quashed, as it is clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-B of the Act as also held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jhabarmal Mukim (supra) that the provisions of Section 6-B of the Act are clearly mandatory and as a matter of fact even if such provisions had not been there, the respondents would have been obliged to indicate the grounds on which the confiscation was proposed to be made. Patna High Court CWJC No.13311 of 2012 (4) dt.26-09-2013 4 For the aforesaid reasons, the show cause notice dated 29.9.2012 is quashed. So far as reliance made by learned for the petitioner upon the case of Ranjeet Kumar (supra) is concerned, the same is of no help to the case of the petitioner as in that case the final order of confiscation had already been passed and in the facts and circumstances of that case it had been held to be without any legal justification. So far as the release of food grains in question is concerned, the prayer for the same is rejected. However, this Court is surprised that food grains in question being essential commodities which are perishable in nature, the Collector did not act in the matter in accordance with law in terms of the powers conferred upon him under Section 6-A (2) of the Act and ensured that such commodity was not destroyed by the passage of time but is utilized for proper purpose whether upon confiscation, or even if it is not confiscated, by the person from whom it is seized so that at least the benefit of a proper market price of the goods is received by the person. Let the Collector act in the matter accordingly. This Court is also of the view that the matter having been pending before the criminal court at the first instance, the Patna High Court CWJC No.13311 of 2012 (4) dt.26-09-2013 5 petitioner ought to have approached the criminal court for release of the goods in question which has not been done. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is partly allowed by quashing the show cause notice dated 29.9.2012 with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice in accordance with law indicating the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. V.P.Sinha/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
Arguments
With regard to seizure, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no restriction on the quantity of rice and wheat which can be stored by any person and such seizure is bad in law. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jhabarmal Mukim vs. The State of Bihar and others: 1984 PLJR 568. He also relies upon another decision of a