Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 798 (PAT)

Ram Saran Ramuka v. State Of Bihar

2001-08-29

AFTAB ALAM

body2001
Judgment 1. Despite two adjournments no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the State and the Junior counsel to Standing Counsel V expresses his inability in filing a counter affidavit stating that the concerned respondents had not sent any instructions to him. 2. I am not inclined to keep this matter pending before this court any longer as in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is only one direction that can be issued in this matter. 3. The petitioner is a wholesale dealer and he held licences under the relevant Orders existing at the material time. In the year 1983, certain quantities of foodgrains and other articles were seized from his premises on the allegation of violation of the terms of licences/provisions of the Licencing Orders. The seizure gave rise to a confiscation proceeding in which an order was passed for the confiscation of the seized articles. Following the order of confiscation, the seized articles were sold on the direction of the District Magistrate and the sale proceed amounting to Rs. 60,000 was deposited in the State Treasury. 4. The seizure had also given rise to a criminal case, against the petitioner, for offences punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. But the cognizance taken in the criminal proceedings was ultimately quashed by this court by order, dated 17.7.1986 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7609 of 1983. At that time, the petitioners appeal against the order of confiscation of the seized articles was pending before the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. When the appellate authority was apprised of the quashing of the cognizance order, he disposed of the petitioners appeal by order dated 19.9.1997 (Annexure-1). By this order, he allowed the petitioners appeal and directed the concerned District Magistrate to refund the amount of the sale proceed, along with the statutory interest. 5. Following that order, the Collector released the sum of Rs. 60,000/- being the sale proceed of the seized articles in favour of the petitioner but having no sufficient funds for payment of interest, he sought instructions from the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department vide his letter dated 17.6.1998 (Annexure-3). Since then, the petitioner has not been paid the statutory interest as provided by law and as directed by the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce by his order dated 19.9.1997. 6. Since then, the petitioner has not been paid the statutory interest as provided by law and as directed by the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce by his order dated 19.9.1997. 6. Seeking a direction for payment of interest on the sale proceed of the seized articles, the petitioner is now. before this court. 7. Section 6C(2) of the Essential Commodities Act provides for payment of reasonable interest in certain circumstances. Section 6C(2) is as follows: "6C (2) :Where an order under section 6-A is modified or annulled by the State Government or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under section 6-A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, such person shall, except as provided by sub-section (3) of section 6-A, be paid the price therefor as if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of seizure of the essential commodity, and such price shall be determined (i) in the case of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-B) of section 3, (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx xxx 8. In view of plain language of the statutory provision, there can not be any two opinions about the petitioners entitlement to receive interest and the State cannot run away from its liability of payment of interest to the petitioner. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 10 per cent on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the date of seizure till the date on which the amount was paid to the petitioner. The interest at the aforesaid rate must be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Respondent no. 3, the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce department, Government of Bihar is directed to faithfully carry out the directions of this court. 10. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. q