Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 436 (CAL)

Naba Kumar Kundu v. State of West Bengal

2001-07-20

Narayan Chandra Sil

body2001
JUDGMENT Narayan Chandra Sil, J.: This revisional application was directed against the order dated 22.4.1999 passed by the Additional Collector, Nadia in connection with E.C. Case No.5 of 1999 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act, 1955 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 68/1999 dated 19.2.1999 whereby the learned Additional Collector, Nadia was pleased to confiscate the articles seized in transit and direct the Sub-Divisional Agricultural Marketing Officer, Nadia to sell the articles in auction and deposit the sale proceeds under proper head of accounts. 2. It is stated that the petitioners are licenced wholesalers of seeds and edible oils and the said licence was granted under para 6(1) of the West Bengal Pulses and Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Control Order, 1978, as partners of the firm M/s. Kundu Brothers. The said licence was granted on 16.6.1987 and thereafter extended from time to time and valid till 16.6.2000. The said Kundu Brothers had appointed one Surajit Saba, a representative for collecting mustard seeds for their firm. Accordingly Surajit Saha as agent of the petitioners collected oil seeds from the cultivator and loaded on a lorry bearing No. WMH 5780 when the said lorry along with oil seeds was seized by Kotwali Police despite the fact that the driver, Raj Kumar Roy had shown xerox copy of the licence. It is alleged by the prosecution party that the said driver had given out that Surajit Saha used to purchase mustard seeds from local farmers and sell it to other dealers or mill-owners without any licence and thereby the provisions of para 3 of West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Control Order, 1978 have been violated. The Additional Collector, Nadia after having considered the show-cause notice had confiscated 105 bags of mustard seeds weighing about 84 quintals from the lorry and the vehicle in question was released on P.R. Bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the owner. It is stated in the revisional application that since Surajit Saba had purchased the mustard seeds on being authorised by the petitioners having valid licence, the confiscation order is bad in law. It is also stated that the Additional Collector, Nadia did not satisfy himself as required under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 that there was no contravention of any order and as such the impugned order is also bad in law. It is also stated that the Additional Collector, Nadia did not satisfy himself as required under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 that there was no contravention of any order and as such the impugned order is also bad in law. It is again stated that the learned Additional Collector while proceeding to act under section 6A of the Act, failed to consider that the E.C. Amendment Ordinance, 1988, extending the power of the Collector to initiate confiscation proceedings had lost its force after six weeks from its promulgation on May 24, 1998 by virtue of Article 123 of the Constitution as it was never laid before Houses of Parliament. 3. It is submitted, by Miss Parul Banerjee appearing on behalf of the State that there is nothing wrong in the confiscation proceeding made by the Additional Collector, Nadia. In the revisional application M/s. Kundu Brothers has been described as a partnership firm and the partners of that firm, appointed Swarajit Saha representative of the said firm. A xerox copy of such "Anumati Patra" on stamp paper of Rs. 10/- is found to have been annexed wherefrom it appears that one Naba Kumar Kundu as partner of Kundu Brothers permitted Swarajit Saba (and not Surajit Saha) to purchase mustard seeds. It appears from the reverse of that stamp paper that the same was purchased on 2.12.1996 in the name of Naba Kumar Kundu who has been described therein as the proprietor (and not partner) of Kundu Brothers. But the impugned appointment was made on 1.1.1999. It appears from the impugned order dated 22.4.1999 that Swarajit had no valid licence for dealing in mustard seeds. 4. The main attack of the revisionists against the order of confiscation is on the point that since the Presidential Promulgation of Ordinance was not laid before both the Houses of Parliament it had lost its force and as such the confiscation order under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is bad in law. 4. The main attack of the revisionists against the order of confiscation is on the point that since the Presidential Promulgation of Ordinance was not laid before both the Houses of Parliament it had lost its force and as such the confiscation order under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is bad in law. On scrutiny it appears that by the Presidential Promulgation proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6A of the principal Act was substituted by the following proviso:- "Provided that in the case of any such essential commodity the retail sale price whereof has been fixed by the Central Government or a State Government under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price so fixed." It appears that section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 deals with the provision of confiscation of essential commodities. There is no denying of the fact that as the said Presidential Promulgation was not laid before both the Houses of Parliament within time the said Ordinance made by the Presidential Promulgation had since lapsed. But it is not at all conceivable as to why with the lapse of that Presidential Promulgation the provision of section 6A of the principal Act relating to confiscation of essential commodities should not stand. In fact even after the lapse of such Presidential Promulgation the provisions of the principal Act stands good and so also the confiscation of essential commodity by the Collector. In the instant case it appears that in confiscating the seized goods the Additional Collector had scrupulously followed the mandatory provisions of section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and after having considered the show-cause filed by the petitioner, he had passed the order. 5. I thus find nothing illegal in the confiscation proceeding and so also the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nadia. The revisional application is thus dismissed on contest. 6. A copy of this judgment be sent down to the authorities concerned. Revisional application dismissed.