Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 5 (ORI)

SRI RAMLAL AGARWALLA v. COLLECTOR

1999-01-07

D.M.PATNAIK, SUSANTA CHATTERJI

body1999
JUDGMENT : Susanta Chatterji, J. - The Petitioner has asked for the following relief: ...on hearing the parties be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Collector to refund the sale proceeds immediately to the Petitioner and/or pass other order or orders as deemed proper in the interest of Justice.... 2. It is stated that the Petitioner is a whole sale licence holder under the provisions of Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds,Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977. He is allegedly carrying on business at Jagatpur in the district of Cuttack. 3. It is contended that a raid was conducted on 8-7-1996 jointly by the Inspector, supplies (Enforcement), Cuttack, Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology (Enforcement) and Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipal Corporation and they seized 344 tins of Mustard oil under Clause 12 of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds, Edible Oil Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 and conditions of Licence No. 3 (l)(c), 4, 5 (1) and 7 of the Licence granted under the Central Order. Out of 344 tins of Mustard oil seized, one tin was taken by the Food Inspector, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack for drawing sample of it. The balance 343 tins were seized by the Inspector of Supplies (Enforcement) along with 2 Quintals and 25 Kgs. Mustard oil 78 Quintals and 90 Kgs R.B.D. Oil imported and 90 Quintals 10 Kgs. mustard seeds and subsequently filed 11 case before the Collector, Cuttack u/s 6(A) and 7 for confiscation and punishment under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The seized articles were put to public sale which secured Rs. 5,12,858/-. 4. It is placed on record that the Collector, Cuttack after hearing the Petitioner passed an order on 19-4-1997 vide Misc Case No. 4/96 confiscated the sale proceeds of the seized goods amounting to Rs. 5,12,85890 to the State. The actions of the Enforcement staff and the learned Collector, Cuttack are allegedly unjust, arbitrary and on wrong findings. The Petitioner, however, being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, preferred an appeal before the State Government. 5,12,85890 to the State. The actions of the Enforcement staff and the learned Collector, Cuttack are allegedly unjust, arbitrary and on wrong findings. The Petitioner, however, being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, preferred an appeal before the State Government. The Secretary to Government of Orissa, Food and Supplies Department after going through the details of the case at length and finding that there was no stock discrepancy and the seized oil tins were under loading in the business premises of the Petitioner and there was no offence committed nor contravened the provisions of the Act and the order of the Government was pleased to set aside the order of the Collector with a direction to refund the entire sale proceeds to the Petitioner. Since the Collector has not complied with the orders of the Secretary, the Petitioner has come to this Court for necessary relief. 5. A counter affidavit has since been filed by the opposite party. It is placed on record that the writ petition has become unsustainable in the eye of law in terms of the Petitioner's prayer since 16-9-1998 in view of title fact that the deponent had passed an order to refund the sale proceeds of the seized stock on furnishing Bank Guarantee and bond in pursuance to order dated 7-3-1998 made in Appeal Case No. 6 of 1997 and in view of the judgment reported in 1990(2) Crimes 665 (Sambhu Dayal Agrawalla v. State of West Bengal and Anr.. It is also stated that while complying with the appellate order the principles settled was kept in view and it was directed to refund the sale proceeds on ascertaining the present position of the proceeding u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Petitioner was, therefore, asked to execute a bond and furnish a Bank Guarantee of the refundable amount in favour of the Collector, Cuttack until disposal of the criminal proceeding but he has not complied with the same. 6. We have heard the learned lawyer for the Petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate at length. We have perused the impugned order of the Collector as well as the order of the appellate authority. We do not find that the Collector has any way violated the order of the appellate authority. 6. We have heard the learned lawyer for the Petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate at length. We have perused the impugned order of the Collector as well as the order of the appellate authority. We do not find that the Collector has any way violated the order of the appellate authority. The Collector has asked the Petitioner to get refund of the sale proceeds by executing a bond and on furnishing a Bank Guarantee. Regard being had to the materials on record and appreciating the scope of the writ petition, we dispose of the same oberving that there is no bar and/or impediment for the Petitioner to get refund of the sale proceeds on executing necessary bond. He can, however, ask the Collector to exempt him from furnishing him any Bank Guarantee by executing necessary bond as would be deemed fit and proper. The bond will automatically cease after disposal of the proceeding u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The exercise must be made within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. No costs. D.M. Patnaik, J. 7. I agree.