Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 128 (PAT)

Vijay Nandan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-02

S.K.KATRIAR

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma for the petitioner, and Mr. Anuj Prakash, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No. 6, for the respondents. 2. According to the writ petition, the respondent authorities had seized 61 quintals of KHESARI, and 17 quintals of MASUR, from the petitioners premises on 4.5.2000. The seizure list is marked Annexure-1 to the writ petition (also marked Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). This led to Confiscation Case No. 10(M) 2001, wherein the petitioner prayed for dropping the proceedings and release of the food- grains. The same was allowed by order dated 6.8.2001 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned District Magistrate of the district of Nawada, whereby he directed the foodgrains to be released on the ground that there is no provision in law to seize/ confiscate the said items. The concerned authorities did not release the goods leading to the order dated 3.10.2002 (Annexure- 3), passed by the learned District Magistrate, reiterating the said order dated 6.8.2001 (Annexure-2), and for prompt compliance by the District Supply Officer, the Block Development Officer, and the Sub-Inspector of Police. The same has yet not been complied with leading to the present writ petition. The goods have not so far been released and the prayer is being made for compensation because the goods are no longer fit for human consumption. 3. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit, wherein the factual position has not been disputed. Paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: "That the then Supply Inspector, Hisua, Sri Ambika Prasad and Sri Saroj Kumar, the then Assistant District Supply Officer, Sri Shiv Prasad Ram, Nawada and the then District Supply Officer Sri Krishna Arjun Prasad were officials of Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Bihar and they were fully aware of Governments guideline. But they have not complied the order of respondent no. 2. Their present place of posting and permanent residential address is given below: SI No. Name Present Posting Permanent Address 1. Sri Ambika Prasad Supply Inspector Matihani Block (Begusarai) 2. Sri Shiv Prasad Ram Ex-A.D.S.O., Nawada Retired on October, 2000 Mal Godam, Chhayi Road, Nawada 3. Sri Saroj Kumar Supply Inspector Narkatiyaganj Block (West Champaran) 4. Sri Krishna Arjun Prasad, D.S.O. Retired on February, 2004 C/o Manoj Kumar, 102, Anapurna Apartment, Baldev Bhawan, Punaichak, Patna. 4. Sri Ambika Prasad Supply Inspector Matihani Block (Begusarai) 2. Sri Shiv Prasad Ram Ex-A.D.S.O., Nawada Retired on October, 2000 Mal Godam, Chhayi Road, Nawada 3. Sri Saroj Kumar Supply Inspector Narkatiyaganj Block (West Champaran) 4. Sri Krishna Arjun Prasad, D.S.O. Retired on February, 2004 C/o Manoj Kumar, 102, Anapurna Apartment, Baldev Bhawan, Punaichak, Patna. 4. This matter has been taken up by this Court more than once. By order dated 9.8.2005, the State counsel was directed to file a counter affidavit as to why heavy cost should not be imposed on the persons who are responsible for not complying with the aforesaid order. It was again taken up on 24.8.2005, on which date it was, inter alia, directed that, "...counter affidavit shall also suggest the ways and means of compensating the petitioner. Put up after two weeks at the top of the list..." Though counter affidavit has been filed on 26.10.2005, but no attempt has been made to quantify the losses to the petitioner. It is not difficult to notice the purposive omission. 5. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position that 61 quintals of KHESARI, and 17 quintals of MASUR, were seized on 4.5.2000, and the aforesaid two orders were passed for release of the goods which have not so far been released. I take judicial notice of the fact that the foodgrains seized on 4.5.2000 have by now badly deteriorated and not longer fit for human consumption. Therefore, compensation to the petitioner is the only remedy. Opportunity was given to the respondent authorities to inform the Court as to the quantification of the amount and compensation payable to the petitioner, which has not been done. I must state candidly that there is, therefore, some difficulty in quantifying the amount. I am informed at the Bar that KHESARI was being sold in the open market at the rate of about Rs. 1500/- per quintal in the year 2000, and the total cost of seized KHESARI will roughly come to Rs. 91,500/-. I am equally informed at the Bar that MASUR was then being sold in the retail market at the rate of about Rs. 2500/- per quintal, and the price of the seized quantity of MASUR can be quantified at Rs. 40,800/-. 91,500/-. I am equally informed at the Bar that MASUR was then being sold in the retail market at the rate of about Rs. 2500/- per quintal, and the price of the seized quantity of MASUR can be quantified at Rs. 40,800/-. The total retail price of the two items in the year, 2000 thus comes to Rs. 1,32,300.00. It is manifest from the two orders passed by the learned District Magistrate that seizure was absolutely illegal and thus void ab initio, was an act of high-handedness, and was an extremely arbitrary action. This was a serious inroad into the petitioners right to livelihood in terms of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the District Magistrate of the District of Nawada is hereby directed to ensure payment of a sum of Rs. 1,32,300.00 alongwith interest at the rate of 6 per cent to the petitioner from May 2000, till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The petitioner will also be entitled to the costs of this writ petition quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within the same time, all in one instalment. It will, however, be open to the District Magistrate to recover the amount from the persons responsible for the same in due course. 6. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.