Lal Bahadur Sah v. The State Of Bihar

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goodgrains were given in 2007. On 13.04.2008 and 19.07.2008, he informed the authorities of damage to the foodgrains due to lack of proper direction for distribution and deterioration. He filed another representation on 01.08.2008. It is submitted that rats were damaging the foodgrains. Belatedly on 16.05.2011 he was directed to refund the undistributed amount of the foodgrains given under the SAMPOORNA GRAMIN ROJGAR YOJANA. The lapse was Patna High Court CWJC No.58 of 2013 (2) dt.08-01-2013 of the authorities in not giving appropriate orders for distribution timely leading to deterioration of the foodgrains. Appropriate precaution of intimation to the authorities was taken. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 224 of 2012 has observed that rice was a perishable item. The dealers would not have suo motu disposed it. The District Magistrate shall conduct an inquiry for the manner in which the scheme was conducted and fix responsibility if any action was to be taken against the dealer. The petitioner cannot be penalized for the lapse of the respondents. Counsel for the State has invited the attention of the Court to the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. He rightly submits that while the petitioner makes a defense of intimation to the authorities in 2008 the reply to the show cause dated 16.08.2012 contains no reference to the same. He rightly submits that it is extremely vague with regard to when intimation was given, to which authority it was given, when the foodgrains was destroyed and where it was dumped. This Court exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is primarily concerned with the decision making process and the merits of the decision may fall for consideration in case of perversity etc. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been condemned unheard or that evidence has been collected behind his back and/or that the Patna High Court CWJC No.58 of 2013 (2) dt.08-01-2013 defense taken by him has not been considered properly. Having considered the contents of the reply to the show cause notice, the Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning that it extremely vague and does not make any disclosure with regard to the date or name of authority to which intimation was given including with regard to rotting and destruction. There is no occasion for the Court to interfere with the impugned order. In 2012 (3) BLJ (SC) 221 the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of the foodgrains to be distributed through the Public Distribution System as follows : `` 6. The EC Act was enacted to safeguard the public interest considering it necessary in the interests of the general public to control the production, supply and distribution of, trade and commerce in, certain commodities through the legislation. It was in the light of the aforesaid public policy that Section 3 of the EC Act empowered the Government to issue notifications and once a notification is issued, it enables the competent authority to confiscate the goods under Section 6-A and prosecution leading to punishment provided under Section 7 of the EC Act. The Collector has been empowered under Section 6-A, if it is found to be expedient to sell the seized commodity which is subject to natural decay, at a controlled price or by public auction or dispose of through Public Distribution System to avoid artificial shortages, maintain the price line and secure equitable distribution thereof through fair price shops as it is in the interest of the general public. `` 8. We are at pains to observe that the High Court has dealt with the issue in most casual and caviler manner without any Patna High Court CWJC No.58 of 2013 (2) dt.08-01-2013 application of mind showing complete disregard of the legislature enacting the provisions for general welfare. `` 11. In the subsequent order dealing with the ownership of the wheat the High Court has only taken note of the fact that as the respondents herein were prepared to furnish adequate/sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court below for release of the wheat in question, the wheat could have been released by the CJM. In case the learned CJM came to the conclusion after appreciating the evidence on record that the respondents/applicants were not in a position to show any document which may show their ownership to the wheat, there was no justification for the High Court to issue directions for release of such material merely because applicant could furnish the security. If it is so, any stranger or third party may give sufficient security and get the seized goods release in his favour. Such a course is not permissible even while deciding the application under Section 451/457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A person having no title/ownership over the seized material may get the same released on furnishing security and sell it in black market and earn profit several times more than the amount of security furnished by him. We fail to understand as how such an order of release which defeat the very purpose for which the EC Act was enacted, could be passed ``. The writ application is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J.) Md. Ibrarul/-