Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 100 (ORI)

Gobinda Chandra Swain v. State of Orissa and three

2012-02-23

C.R.DASH

body2012
ORDER 23.02.2012 - Heard. The petitioners are stated to be primary cultivators of Balasore district. They were ferrying quintal 362. 27 Kgs. of paddy in 559 Plastic Packets in two trucks bearing Registration Nos. OR 01-F-8517 and OR-04-E-4358 for sale to some rice miller in Bargarh. On 09.02.2012 Supply Inspector, Bargarh is alleged to have seized the aforesaid stock of paddy at Attabira on the ground of contravention of provisions of Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 1982. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners being the primary cultivators have the right to sale their paddy to anybody inside the State or outside and no license or permit is required for that purpose provided they (petitioners) get minimum support price fixed by the appropriate Government. To substantiate his condition learned counsel for the petitioners draws my attention to letter No.3211 (30) dated 24.01.1994 issued by the Government of Odisha in Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department and the notification dated 19.11.2011 vide Annexure-3. It is, however, fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that rightly or wrongly the paddy in question having already been seized by the concerned Supply Inspector, remedy for the petitioners lies in moving the Collector, Bargarh under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. At the same time, it is earnestly submitted that the paddy being produce of the last Kharif Season and the same being perishable, learned Collector, Bargarh should be directed to take prompt action in the matter on being moved by the petitioners. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that Clause-9 of Annexure-3 prescribes for identification of genuine farmers and whether the petitioners are genuine farmers should be proved by them before the Collector in the aforesaid proceeding. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that Clause-9 of Annexure-3 prescribes for identification of genuine farmers and whether the petitioners are genuine farmers should be proved by them before the Collector in the aforesaid proceeding. Regard being had to the aforesaid limited grievance of the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with consent by learned counsels for the parties with the following directions :- (I) the petitioners shall appear before the Collector, Bargarh on 27.02.2012 and shall file necessary application for release of the seized paddy along with supporting documents/materials to show that they are genuine farmers; (II) there being allegation of illegal seizure without any contravention of any control order and there being assertion to the effect that there is no restriction for free movement of paddy by any farmer in the State or outside, learned Collector shall do well to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law on appreciation of the aforesaid facts within a period of fifteen days from 27.02.2012; (III) appropriate care should be taken to protect the paddy; and (IV) in the event the seizure is found to be unauthorized or illegal, the Supply Inspector concerned be cautioned to be careful in future. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.