Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 198 (CAL)

JASH KARAN RATHI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2000-04-20

MALAY KUMAR BASU

body2000
MALAY KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr. P. . C. has been filed by Jash Karan Rathi against the State of West Bengal challenging the order dated 7-9-92 passed by the Collector, E. C. Act, Jalpaiguri in E. C. Case No. 8/26 of 92-93 arising out of Dhubguri P. S. Case No. 51/92 dated 7-8-92 as erroneous and illegal. By this order learned Collector, E. C. Act confiscated the seized articles namely, 48. 50 quintals of Pulses and directed their sale and deposit of the sale-proceed to the Government treasury. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this application may be summarised as follows :--A raid was held at the grocery shop of the applicant at Dhubguri bazar by the Dhubguri Police in the absence of the applicant and as the son of the applicant failed to produce the books of account to the Officers on their demand, they seized 29 tins of mustard oils, 59 bags of Pulses of different variety and also sugar and spices along with a stock-cum-rate board, Trade licence and Food licence. The seized pulses belonged to four owners besides the applicant and the applicant share therein was to the extent of 9. 9 quintals only. Accordingly, all the five owners made applications before the Collector for release of their respective Pulses, but the learned Collector without taking any evidence and without assigning any reason rejected their petitions and confiscated the entire quantity of Pulses while returning the other seized articles in favour of the petitioner. The order of the learned Collector suffers from several infirmities. First, in his order there is no finding that there had been any violation on the part of the petitioners in respect of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and hence the order is wholly without jurisdiction. Secondly, the learned Collector did not assign any reason as to why he was not accepting or allowing the petitions of four other persons taking the plea that they had kept their Pulses in the godown of the applicant for the reason that their houses were near the same. Thirdly, the learned Collector passed the impugned order without caring to take any evidence to ascertain the truth or falsity of the averments in the petitions of the five petitioners. Thirdly, the learned Collector passed the impugned order without caring to take any evidence to ascertain the truth or falsity of the averments in the petitions of the five petitioners. Hence this revisional application has been filed for an order quashing the impugned order and returning the seized commodity in favour of the owners. ( 2 ) THE petition has been contested by the State of West Bengal. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate for the State contends that the impugned order has been passed under Section 6a of the E. C. Act. Under the provisions of Section 6c if any person is aggrieved by any order of the Collector passed under Section 6a, his remedy lies in preferring an appeal before the appropriate authority as appointed by the State Govt. But, since instead of availing himself of this alternative remedy by preferring an appeal before such an appellate authority from the order of the Collector in question the petitioner has straightway moved this Court by filing this revisional application, this must be taken to be mala fide attempt on his part of circumvent the provisions of law and on that score alone this revisional application should be dismissed holding it to be not maintainable. Because, according to him, an application like this can be filed only when there is no other alternative remedy available to the applicant under the law. ( 3 ) AS against this, the contention of Mr. De, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the question of his availing of any such alternative remedy cannot arise in this case in view of the reason that the impugned order suffers from a basic defect, namely lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Collector, inasmuch as, the learned Collector has failed to record his prima facie satisfaction therein that the person concerned had violated any order made under Section 3 of the E. C. Act. In support on his argument Mr. De has referred to a decision of a single Bench of this Court reported in (1983) 87 CWN 534 (Raj Kumar Mondal v. State of W. B. ). In support on his argument Mr. De has referred to a decision of a single Bench of this Court reported in (1983) 87 CWN 534 (Raj Kumar Mondal v. State of W. B. ). In this decision it has been held that though the general Rule is that the High Court will not ordinarily interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, equally speedy and efficacious, but he has not availed of it, yet this rule of alternative remedy will not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in special circumstances or in extraordinary cases where the order of administrative authority under challenge is on the face of it without jurisdiction and the aggrieved person has no speedy remedy except by moving this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and the case before His Lordship wherein the impugned order of the Collector suffered from the vice of lack of jurisdiction due to non-mentioning of the satisfaction regarding violation of any order under Section 3 of the E. C. Act was found to fall in the category of cases where the interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was called for. ( 4 ) ON a careful perusal of the impugned Order I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. De. In his order the learned Collector has given express reasons as to why he would not accept the explanation submitted by the concerned Party regarding the excess quantity of Pulses found in his possession. His reasoning is as follows :--But the explanation as given by the O. P. for storing of Pulses beyond permissible limit at para 7 is not accepted, as the whole stock was seized from the shop of the O. P. . . . Hence I do hereby confiscate the Pulses including Maskalai dal, Gram dal, Mug dal, Masur dal, Kesari dal with total amount of 48. 50 quintals u/s. 6a of the E. C. Act, 1955. . . . " This order was passed by the learned Collector after considering a written explanation submitted by the petitioner showing cause presumably in response to a notice from the Collector in the confiscation proceeding No. 8/26 of 92-93 (vide para 4 of the Revisional application ). 50 quintals u/s. 6a of the E. C. Act, 1955. . . . " This order was passed by the learned Collector after considering a written explanation submitted by the petitioner showing cause presumably in response to a notice from the Collector in the confiscation proceeding No. 8/26 of 92-93 (vide para 4 of the Revisional application ). In this show-cause petition the petitioner has taken the plea that there has been no violation on his part of any provision of the W. B. Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealer Licensing) Order 1978. The Ld. Collector in his order while dwelling upon this show-cause petition has made the above quoted observation to the effect that he was not satisfied with the petitioner's explanation as to his storing of pulses beyond permissible limits. This to my mind is enough for the purpose of recording of his satisfaction as to the contravention of some order made Under Section 3 of the E. C. Act. There is no prescribed form of recording such satisfaction by the Collector. In Section 6a it is only required that the Collector must be satisfied that there has been contravention of some order. In the impugned order the Collector has given in substance his satisfaction about contravention of an order by the Party by stating that the latter was found to have stored pulses in excess of permissible limits. Learned Collector's omission to formally mention herein the name of the particular order which the petitioner allegedly contravened is not very vital, since that had already been made known to him in the notice in response to which he was filing the show-cause petition and the impugned Order was being passed only in continuation thereof. The fact that the Collector has given in substance what infringement actually the petitioner was found to have indulged in is enough to suggest that the requirement of Section 6a in this regard has been sufficiently fulfilled, or, in other words, there has been substantial compliance of such a mandate. The fact that the Collector has given in substance what infringement actually the petitioner was found to have indulged in is enough to suggest that the requirement of Section 6a in this regard has been sufficiently fulfilled, or, in other words, there has been substantial compliance of such a mandate. As soon as the learned Collector says that he was satisfied that the seized food grains exceeded the permissible limits, it is presumable and implied that he was satisfied about the alleged contravention by the petitioner of the Order which the petitioner had referred to in his show-cause petition or, for that matter, which was mentioned in the notice relating to the proposed confiscation, that is, the West Bengal Pulses, Edible oilseeds and Edible oil (Dealer's licensing) Order, 1978. ( 5 ) THUS, this case is clearly distinguishable from the case under reference where the impugned order of the Collector did not contain the recorded satisfaction of the Collector that the Party concerned had contravened the provision of any Order passed under Section 3 of the E. C. Act. That being so, the verdict that was given under the circumstances of that case will not be applicable to our present case where the Collector is found to have stated the reason why he was not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and on that score he confiscated the essential commodities in question. Section 6c of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Section 6a may within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order appeal to the State Government concerned and the State Government shall after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the or-der appealed against. Thus the remedy of an aggrieved person in such respect primarily lies in an appeal to be preferred before the State Government or the appropriate authority, as appointed by the State Government. From that point of view the preferring of a Revisional application straightway before the High Court without exhausting the provisions of Section 6c of the Act cannot be tenable under the settled legal position. In the result, the Revisional application under consideration is found not maintainable. From that point of view the preferring of a Revisional application straightway before the High Court without exhausting the provisions of Section 6c of the Act cannot be tenable under the settled legal position. In the result, the Revisional application under consideration is found not maintainable. The proper remedy of the applicant lies in preferring appeal before the State Government against the order of confiscation in question. Hence the Revisional application is dismissed. Interim order granted be vacated.