Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 547 (JHR)

Umashanker Rajgaria v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-08-07

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. These two writ applications, arising out of common order, have been heard together and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Collector, Dhanbad in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, whereby and whereunder the Collector confiscated 48 quintals of sugar belonging to the petitioners of CWJC 4129/ 2000 and a public carrier vehicle belonging to the petitioner of CWJC 4130/2000 for violation of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (in short the Unification Order). 3. The facts are not in much dispute. On 26.3.2000 Sub-Inspector of Police intercepted a public carrier truck carrying 48 bags of sugar from Katras to Nichitpur at Katras chowk and carried the truck to the police station. 4. The allegation is that on demand the driver of the truck failed to produce any document/paper in relation to the stock of sugar loaded in the truck. It is stated that the writ petitioners subsequently appeared before the police and submitted application and cash-memos issued by M/s. Narayani Traders, Katras in their favour and prayed for release of the sugar. On investigation it was found that the sugar belonged to three claimants who are dealers under public distribution system. It was further found from the cash-memos produced by the petitioners that it was prepared on 25.3.2000 and subsequently the date of delivery was mentioned as 26.3.2000. On the basis of the report confiscation proceeding was initiated and show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners on the charges that there were interpolation in the date of cash-memos inasmuch as 25.3.2000 was made 26.3.2000 which raises a presumption of carrying sugar for sale in black market. The petitioners appeared and filed their show-cause and denied the allegations. The petitioners case was that though sugar was purchased on 25.3.2000 but the stock could not be lifted on account of non-availability of vehicles on that date. The same was lifted on 26.3.2000 on a hired vehicle and accordingly the dealer put the date of delivery on cash-memo as 26.3.2000. The Collector, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that serious irregularities were committed by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of Unification Order and interpolation was made in the cash-memo in order to sell the article in black market. The Collector, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that serious irregularities were committed by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of Unification Order and interpolation was made in the cash-memo in order to sell the article in black market. Accordingly, the Collector passed the impugned order for confiscation of the article. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the very initiation of confiscation proceeding is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as no case of violation of any order is made out under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. Learned counsel submitted that under the E.C. Act or the Unification Order there is no obligation casted upon the driver to carry any document and. therefore, failure to produce paper by the driver does not make out a case of violation of the E.C. Act or the Unification Order. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners produced all the cash-memos and papers few hours after the vehicle was seized and, therefore, the Collector has committed illegality in holding that there was violation of the provisions of Unification Order. In this connection learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Shanti Trading Company v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1998 PLJR 732 . 6. From perusal of the impugned order dated 14.11.2000 it appears that the Collector while confiscating the commodities and directing the Sub-divisional Officer to deposit sale proceed in the treasury, gave one option to the truck owner to deposit the cost of sugar in view of confiscation of the truck by way of penalty. In the impugned order the Confiscating Authority has not recorded a finding as to which provisions of the Unification Order have been violated. Simply it is stated that there is interpolation in the cash-memo in as much as the cash-memo was issued on 25.3.2000 but subsequently another dated i.e. 26.3.2000 was inserted in the said cash- memo. As noticed above, specific stand of the petitioners was that although sugar was purchased on 25.3.2000 but delivery was taken on 26.3.2000. 7. Simply it is stated that there is interpolation in the cash-memo in as much as the cash-memo was issued on 25.3.2000 but subsequently another dated i.e. 26.3.2000 was inserted in the said cash- memo. As noticed above, specific stand of the petitioners was that although sugar was purchased on 25.3.2000 but delivery was taken on 26.3.2000. 7. In order to ascertain the correct position this Court, by order dated 13.7.2001 issued notice to M/s Narayani Traders from whose shop the sugar in question was purchased directing him to file an affidavit stating as to how interpolation in the date was made in the cash-memo. In compliance of the said order the seller, namely, M/s Narayani Traders, filed an affidavit stating that the sugar in question was purchased on 25.3.2000 but due to non-availability of truck in the evening the purchaser could not take delivery of the same and on the next date i.e. on 26.3.2000 delivery of the sugar was given to the purchaser which is mentioned in the cash-memo. 8. Admittedly, sugar was purchased by the petitioners for distribution to the ration card holders as it was a levy sugar. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the Bar that the ordinary citizens of the State including the ration card holders are not getting sugar from the ration-shops for the last six months and there is acute scarcity of sugar in the market. 9. Be that as it may, since the Collector has not recorded a clear-cut finding as to which of the provisions of the Unification Order has been violated and also in view of the fact that the change of date made in the cash memo was justified by the seller of the article, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 10. This writ application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the Confiscating Authority is set aside. The respondents are directed to immediately release the truck and the article in question, if not already sold, with a specific direction to the petitioners to distribute the sugar to the ration card holders and submit a detailed report to him within a period of two weeks from the date of release of the sugar. 11. Writ application allowed.