Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2239 (PAT)

Rabindra Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar

2011-11-11

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2011
ORDER Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders as contained in Annexure-5 and Annexure-6. Annexure-5 is the order of the District Magistrate, Rohtas dated 02.05.2008 by which the petitioner’s license has been cancelled on the ground that he has not paid levy since December, 2007. The mill of the petitioner was inspected on 31.03.2008 and it is alleged that on inspection, the petitioner refused to supply the documents as asked for by the Inspecting Team. Thereafter, by Annexure-6, it appears that 1733 quintals of paddy and 160.35 quintals of rice were seized on 03.05.2008. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per sub clause KHA of clause 10 of the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 2007, the confiscation of the paddy/rice could not take place if the mill owner did not pay the required levy. It is submitted that the paddy/rice cannot be confiscated on the ground that the mill owner is not required to put up display board of the price or that he has not supplied the documents and as such the other grounds as stated in the impugned order are not good grounds for confiscating the paddy/rice of the petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State annexing therein the enquiry report dated 31.03.2008 which is the basis for proceeding against the petitioner. This enquiry report disclosed that on 31.03.2008, the petitioner had deposited 100 quintals of rice by way of levy in the FCI. Again, on 31.09.2008, the petitioner had deposited 50 quintals of rice. It is alleged that the manager of the mill does not behave in a proper manner and takes a long time in producing the documents etc. 5. On the basis of the said enquiry report as contained in Annexure-E to the counter affidavit, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner in reply to the show cause has stated that he could not deposit the levy in time as there was a rush during Holi, and there was no space in the FCI to accept the said deposit. 6. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 does not disclose the amount of levy payable by the petitioner and proceeds to confiscate the paddy/rice of the petitioner on the grounds as mentioned earlier in this order. 7. 6. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 does not disclose the amount of levy payable by the petitioner and proceeds to confiscate the paddy/rice of the petitioner on the grounds as mentioned earlier in this order. 7. On perusal of the impugned order and the enquiry report which is the basis of proceeding against the petitioner, it is apparent that there is contradiction between the two. The Enquiry Officer has not stated that the petitioner had deposited less levy than he was required to pay or that the books were not produced by the petitioner. What has been alleged is merely that the manager of the mill does not behave in a proper manner and that he produced the books etc. after delay. In pursuance of Annexure-5, the stock of the petitioner has already been seized by the Block Supply Officer, Bikramganj. 8. In the opinion of this Court, as indicated above, there is no justification for passing the order of confiscation of the paddy/rice of the petitioner without determining the levy that was required to be deposited. It is also apparent that there is no direct allegation regarding the levy payable by the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and as such, the orders contained in annexure-5 cannot be sustained. 9. I accordingly quash Annexure-5 and direct the District Magistrate, Rohtas/Block Supply Officer, Bikramganj to return the paddy/rice of the petitioner which was seized by him. In case, the authorities have sold the paddy/rice of the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the amount. 10. This writ application is allowed.