C O M M O N O R D E R These two writ petitions are inter-connected and, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. The parties shall be referred to by their status in W.P.No.26270 of 2001. The facts leading to filing of the cases, in brief, are as follows. On 10-10-1995, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies, Visakhapatnam, the second respondent herein, seized 440 drums of Bitumen under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for brevity) at the behest and as per the orders of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, the first respondent herein. The second respondent handed over the huge stock of Bitumen to the petitioner association. Be it noted that the petitioner association is a registered society formed by lorry owners and was in possession of open space for their use. The petitioner took stock of the Bitumen and kept in its premises. It appears, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated by the first respondent and on 9-11-1995. the second respondent issued a memo to the petitioner to hand over the seized Bitumen drums to the Operation Officer, Terminal B of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Lid. (HPCL) (third respondent herein), as per the directions of the first respondent. It was not done. The petitioner again addressed a letter on 4-3-1996 to the second respondent to shift the Bitumen drums. Therefore, the first respondent ordered to sell the Bitumen to others. At that stage, the third respondent herein filed a writ petition being W.P.No.4858 of 1996 seeking a declaration that the order of the Joint Collector, under Section 6-A of the Act, dated 12-2-1996 is void and unconstitutional. This Court stayed the sale of seized stock by order dated 14-3-1996 passed in WPMP.N0.5960 of 1996. The Joint Collector filed an application being WVMP.No.1107 of 2002 to vacate the interim order passed by this Court on 14-3-1996. Be that as it may, when the writ petition filed by the Gajuwaka Steel City Lorry Owners Welfare Association being W.P.No.26270 of 2001 came up before me, at the interlocutory stage, on 18-2-2002, I directed the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam as well as the Chief Terminal Manager of HPCL to explore the possibilities of expeditiously clearing the petitioner’s premises of the Bitumen which is now in an unusable state and the presence of which has caused and has been causing hardship to the petitioner. When the matter is called today, Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for HPCL, has placed before me a letter dated 21-4-2002 addressed by the Manager (Installation) of Visakhapatnam Terminal of HPCL to the effect that the process of shifting the seized Bitumen stock from the premises of Gajuwaka Steel City Lorry Owners Welfare Association commenced on 20-4-2002 at 10.30hrs. and was completed by 21-4-2002 at 10.30 hrs. after duly obtaining necessary acknowledgement/receipt from the Association. In view of this, the first limb of the petitioner’s prayer in the writ petition (W.P.No.26270 of 2001) seeking a declaration that the action of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies, in not shifting 440 drums of Bitumen seized on 10-10-1995 is illegal and unjust, does not survive. However, Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the petitioner association, contends that by reason of the illegal custody entrusted to the petitioner and by reason of the absence of prompt action on tile part of respondents 1 and 2 in removing the Bitumen from the petitioner’s premises, the association not only suffered hardship and injury and also suffered financial loss. He would further submit that the petitioner association has engaged two watchmen for keeping a vigil over the Bitumen kept in te premises. It is also submitted that due to lapse of time, the Bitumen got melted and spread over the entire land causing serious threat to the people moving around. He also submits that an old woman fall on the Bitumen who was saved. He, therefore, would submit that by keeping Bitumen on the petitioner’s premises for the last about seven years, it has caused environmental hazard to the petitioner association and hence the petitioner must be compensated by defraying the expenditure incurred towards watchmen and also must be given damages. It is no doubt true, in common law, a contract of bailment can come into existence even by reason of illegal action on the part of the parties to the contract*. There is no provision under the Essential Commodities Act enabling or empowering the Joint Collector, the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act, to entrust the seized essential commodities, be it food grains or be it petroleum products to a third person. There is no provision under the Essential Commodities Act enabling or empowering the Joint Collector, the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act, to entrust the seized essential commodities, be it food grains or be it petroleum products to a third person. The authority under Section 6-A of the Act, presumably does so by reason of his official position and in every such case it is reasonable to infer some official coercion and duress. Such illegal enfrustment can also bring into existence a contract of Bailment*. Therefore, without any doubt it must be held that the petitioner herein was keeping custody of 440 drums of Bitumen as a ‘bailee’. The rights and the liabilities and the duties of a bailee are governed by Sections148 to 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 158 is relevant and reads as under: 168. Repayment by bailor, of necessary expenses.- Where by the conditions of bailment, goods are to be kept or to be carried, or to have work done upon them by the bailee for the bailor, and the bailee is to receive no remuneration, the bailor shall repay to the bailee necessary expenses incurred by him for the purpose of the bailment. Be it noted that Section 158 of the Indian Contract Act is also enforceable even in the case of gratuitous bailment. Indeed. if the bailor fails to bear the expenditure incurred by the bailee, it is always open to the bailee to sell the goods bailed and appropriate the proceeds. Though some statement is filed in regard to the expenditure incurred by the petitioner association, there is a dispute as to actual damages incurred by the petitioner by reason of engaging watchmen and by. reason of providing protection to the goods kept in its custody. However, as rightly contended by Sri B.Devanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, in appropriate cases, un-tiquidated damages can always be considered by the Court even in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases involving environmental degradation. Except making a statement across the Bar that ‘polluter pays’ principle of environmental law applies to the facts of the case, there are no pleadings to that effect nor has it been demonstrated by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the relief cannot be considered in this case. Except making a statement across the Bar that ‘polluter pays’ principle of environmental law applies to the facts of the case, there are no pleadings to that effect nor has it been demonstrated by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the relief cannot be considered in this case. I may, however, hasten to add, it is always open to the petitioner to serve a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the respondents 1 & 2and file an appropriate suit claiming damages, both against the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and/or Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakha-patnam Terminal. Before I leave this case, I must observe that though in the writ petition filed by the third respondent being W.P.No.4858 of 1996, this Court ordered sale of Bitumen seized on 10-10-1995, the respondents, namely, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam chose to file a vacate stay application only on 12-4-2002, that too when the final hearing proceedings commenced before this Court. If only the Joint Collector had been little vigilant, especially having regard to the fact that highly dangerous and inflammable substance was entrusted to a private body of laymen and had filed an application to vacate the interim order, the situation would have been avoided. In the unwarranted and unethical dispute between the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and the HPCL in’ relation to the jurisdiction and power of the Joint Collector as well as the liability for the confiscation amount, a private association of lorry owners has been subjected to injustice, which requires to be remedied. In the result, though the writ petition is disposed of recording the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for HPCL and the learned Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies that the petitioner’s premises has been cleared of 440 (?) drums of Bitumen on 21-4-2002, in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to direct the Joint Collector to pay exemplary costs to the petitioner quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The Joint Collector shall pay these costs forthwith. If the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., has not already challenged the orders of the Joint Collector, dated 12-2-1996 by way of an appeal it is open to them to do so within a period of one week from today. The learned Govt. The Joint Collector shall pay these costs forthwith. If the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., has not already challenged the orders of the Joint Collector, dated 12-2-1996 by way of an appeal it is open to them to do so within a period of one week from today. The learned Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies and the learned Standing Counsel for HPCL, Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar are directed to inform about this order to their respective clients. No order as to costs. --X--