Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2195 (ALL)

Sangam Lal v. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Amethi

2014-07-24

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. The petitioner is a registered owner of a motor vehicle. On 2 June 2014, the vehicle, according to the petitioner, was hired. The vehicle was seized by the Supply Inspector on the ground that a consignment of kerosene oil was being unauthorizedly transported thereon. A first information report was lodged on 3 June 2014 in Case Crime no.703 of 2014 under Section 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner has made an application for the release of the vehicle on 27 June 2014 to the District Magistrate, Amethi, who is the first respondent to these proceedings. 2. Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 reads as follows: “6-E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases. – Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6-A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, the judicial authority appointed under Section 6-C shall have and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any other court, tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.” 3. Hence, where an essential commodity is seized under Section 3 of the Act or inter alia any vehicle or other conveyance used in carrying the essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6-A of the Act, the Collector or the judicial authority appointed under Section 6-C of the Act has the jurisdiction to make orders in regard to, among other things, release of the vehicle or other conveyance. 4. The non obstante provision states that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no other court, tribunal or authority shall have the jurisdiction. 5. In these circumstances, it is the first respondent, who would have to deal with the application filed by the petitioner for the release of the vehicle. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to file a proper application before the first respondent and we, accordingly, permit him to do so. 5. In these circumstances, it is the first respondent, who would have to deal with the application filed by the petitioner for the release of the vehicle. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to file a proper application before the first respondent and we, accordingly, permit him to do so. The first respondent shall thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law thereon expeditiously. 7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.