Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1282 (PAT)

Ranjit Kumar v. State of Bihar

2013-11-11

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 3.7.2012 passed by the Collector, Araria in Confiscation Case No. 18/2011-12 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), as affirmed in appeal by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Confiscation Appeal No. 4 of 2012 (Trial No. 1 of 2012) in so far as it relates to the order of confiscation of Tractor, bearing Registration No. BR-11 L-1938 and Trailer, bearing Registration No. BR-11D-2837. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. It appears that on 14.11.2011 the aforesaid Tractor with• the Trailer was intercepted alongwith 14.5 quintals of rice and 24.5 quintals of wheat. The Tractor and Trailer with foodgrains were seized. Consequent thereto, information having been sent to the Collector of the District, confiscation proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated in respect of the foodgrains and the Tractor-Trailer. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the Tractor-Trailer. The information sent to the S.D.O. requesting initiation of the confiscation proceeding (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was sent by the Block Supply Officer, Raniganj. The only allegation as made in the said communication is that upon being intercepted and asked for papers the driver could not produce any paper and ran away. The bags of foodgrains were packed in sacks bearing F.C.I. marking and beyond this there is no other allegation. The order of the Collector, who has passed the order of confiscation (Annexure-4) and the appellate order passed by the learned Judge (Annexure-5) also show that there is absolutely no reference to any order alleged to have been violated. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in absence of any finding that any order duly issued under the Essential Commodities Act with reference to Section 3 read with Section 5 thereof having been violated, there cannot be any confiscation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in absence of any finding that any order duly issued under the Essential Commodities Act with reference to Section 3 read with Section 5 thereof having been violated, there cannot be any confiscation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. If we read the provisions of Sections 6-A and 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act it would be manifest that the sine qua non for initiating the confiscation proceeding is an order issued with reference to Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and there must be violation of statutory order before the Collector gets the jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceedings. Thus, the order of confiscation must note that which and what order has been violated. A reference t9 the impugned order of the Collector and the appellate order of the learned Judge would show that neither the Courts have referred to any order much less the statutory order which can be said to have been violated and in what manner the same has been violated. Thus, there being no finding of any order, which can be said to have been violated much less statutory order under the Essential Commodities Act, the initiation of confiscation proceeding and the order of the Collector becomes without jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the State could not show any provision or any order which can be said to have been violated. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that merely because the sacks, in which foodgrains were found packed bore F.C.I. marking does not by itself violate any statutory order. It is also, submitted that once the foodgrains are distributed by the P.D.S. dealers those sacks are not returned and are sold to the agriculturists who used them to pack their foodgrains. That is what has happened. Merely because the foodgrains found bearing F.C.I. marking does not mean that there is any violation of any statutory order. Further, even if no one has claimed the bags, there may be many reasons but for that the petitioners' vehicle cannot be confiscated. 8. Thus, in my view, in absence of any finding of any violation of any statutory order, the order of confiscation cannot be sustained. Further, even if no one has claimed the bags, there may be many reasons but for that the petitioners' vehicle cannot be confiscated. 8. Thus, in my view, in absence of any finding of any violation of any statutory order, the order of confiscation cannot be sustained. The inevitable consequence would be that the petitioners' Tractor with Trailer aforesaid has to be released to the petitioners forthwith. Accordingly, Annexures-3 & 4 are quashed and the writ petition is allowed.