The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the illegal seizure of foodgrains. It allowed an amendment application and noted that the District Supply Officer had issued a notice to the petitioner. The proceedings were adjourned for the petitioner to respond within two weeks before the matter could be decided on its merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1590 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sunita Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupama Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned State Law Officer.
The amendment application dated 23.1.2023 is allowed. Let the amendment be carried out forthwith.
Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.3District Supply Officer, Varanasi to consider the representation dated 12.12.2022.
(II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 to hand over the possession of the recovered commodity to her."
The petitioner claims to be a registered trader engaged in the business of sale, purchase and storage of foodgrains. It is alleged that the authority concerned without giving opportunity of hearing to her has illegally seized the foodgrains/commodity belonged to her. It is contended that the commodity/ foodgrains of the petitioner is not covered under the ambit of Section 3 of Essential Commodity Act. The seized commodity/ foodgrains solely belongs to the petitioner and it does not belong to Food Corporation of India or any other Government agency. For redressal of her grievance, she made several representations but no action has been taken on her representation.
On the other hand, learned State Law Officer, on the basis of instructions dated 27.1.2023 sent by the District Supply Officer, Varanasi, apprises that District Supply Officer, Varanasi has already issued notice to the petitioner on 25.1.2023 and in case the petitioner responds the same with documentary evidence and other details, definitely the authority would proceed to consider the claim set up by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the proceeding is already ceased before the District Supply Officer, Varanasi, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue
and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the petitioner responds the notice dated 25.1.2023 within two weeks, the competent authority would proceed to decide the claim set up by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law expeditiously but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter. The instructions dated 27.1.2023 is taken on record.
Order Date :- 30.1.2023 SP/
Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the proceedings regarding the seizure of foodgrains.
Whether the petitioner has been afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing before the seizure.
Sunita Patel
State Of U.P.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
