Shree Bhairav Nath Enterprise Vs Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, IAS

1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate representing State respondents.

¶24

2. The present application is filed assailing an FIR dated 11.09.2021 lodged before the Officer in Charge of Badarpur GRPS registered as Badarpur GRPS Case No. 13/2021. The further challenge is an order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, whereby the Deputy Commissioner of the District was directed to initiate the auction of the areca nut seized on the basis of which the aforementioned FIR was registered and the resultant auction notice dated 28.09.2021 and 12.10.2021 for auction of 13 wagons of dry betel nut weighing approx 2,95,127 kgs.

¶25

3. On 21.10.2021, while issuing notice and on the basis of instruction that the auction has in the meantime been completed, this Court by an interim order directed that the auction money shall not be disbursed to any one till disposal of the present writ petition.

¶26

4. The learned State Counsel has also produced the case diary of Badarpur GRPS Case No. 13/2021. From the material available on record, certain undisputed facts emerge:-

¶27

I. The FIR was lodged with the backdrop that the police had received specific information that unlawful goods/ substances were being transported through malicious usage of goods transportation service provided by the Indian Railways.

¶28

II. Accordingly, a parcel train in question was halted suspecting that there may be unlawful substances concealed with other consignments. Thus, the train was halted and the areca nuts were seized on the backdrop of the information that unlawful and dangerous goods are being transported in the train.

¶29

III. Thereafter, the suspected goods (areca nuts) i.e. 4,680

¶30

Page No.# 3/6

¶31

number of gunny bags amounting to total of approximately, 3,85,164 Kgs were seized in presence of Executive Magistrate and other independent witnesses.

¶32

IV. According to the police, the expert opinion report further discloses that the materials are fit for human consumption and they are primarily agricultural product so, without proper possessing/storing in controlled atmosphere, their decay is going to be quicker in normal/natural conditions. Accordingly, an application was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.09.2021 for auction of the seized unclaimed betel nuts (areca nuts) under section 451 Cr.P.C.

¶33

5. From the aforesaid it is seen that though there was information of transporting unlawful and dangerous goods and on the basis of such information, the areca nuts were seized, however, there is nothing on record to show that these areca nuts are dangerous or involved in any offence. However only on the ground that the owner could not be find out, the learned Magistrate allowed such application and the areca nuts were auctioned.

¶34

6. From the case diary as well as material so far collected, there is nothing to show that the areca nuts were either stolen goods or the same has been illegally procured rather there are sufficient material to suggest that the petitioner is engaged in the business of supply of local areca nuts to different organization in the state/ in the country. The railway challan, payment receipt, GST invoice etc. clearly discloses that areca nuts were booked declaring it to be areca nuts with detailed address of the petitioner.

¶35

7. In view of the aforesaid and the material available on record, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the suspicion of the investigating authority and the information received were not resulted to be correct and therefore, this Court is having no option but to hold that such seizure was illegal.

¶36

8. One of the reasons that is discernible from the material on record including the case diary for seeking auction was that such huge quantity of areca nuts seized could not be kept in the railway platform. At the same time, the learned Magistrate has also passed the order very mechanically without applying its mind to the given facts of the present case inasmuch as it has only allowed the auction on the ground that the owner could not be found whereas materials available as regards booking in the railway discloses

¶37

Page No.# 4/6

¶38

what are the materials, for which due payments were made, therefore, the auction could not have been directed so hurriedly.

¶39

9. Be that as it may, as in the meantime, auction has been carried out therefore, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is to direct the authorities to return the money received in the auction sale dated 21.10.2021 carried out in terms of the order of the Magistrate dated 21.09.2021 to the petitioner after proper identification. Ordered accordingly.

¶40

10. The money be transferred to the account of the petitioner within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner before the authority(s) after proper verification of the identity.

¶41

11. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed.

¶42

12. Record be returned back to Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate.

¶43

4. Today, when the matter is called Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the contemnor, submits that out of the auction sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 1,93,97,052/- after making the necessary statutory deduction in accordance with law, a sum of Rs. 1, 84,26,657/- has already been deposited into the account of the petitioner.

¶44

5. A copy of the instruction issued from the office of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by letter dated 27.02.2025 is also been placed before this court which reads as follows: -

¶45

“ The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide order dated 29/08/2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5600/2021 directed to return the money received in auction sale dated 21/10/2021 carried out in terms of order dated 21/09/2021 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj to the petitioner-Shree Bhairav Nath Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor Sri Sunil Kumar Mankash, having its office at Ward No. 30, Saurav Nagar, Near A.G. Office, Dist. Kamrup (M), Assam after proper verification of the identity.

¶46

Page No.# 5/6

¶47

In compliance to the direction of the Hon'ble Court, a Committee headed by the Additional District Commissioner, Sribhumi was constituted to ascertain the claim of the petitioner and to release the auctioned amount to the petitioner and as per report of the said Committee it is found that 45265 KGs of Betel Nut was seized from the Railway Wagon No. NC/04828 & No. SE/088834 which belonged to the Petitioner and the said seized betel nut was auctioned at Rs.1,93,97,052.00 (Rupees one crore ninety three lakh ninety seven thousand fifty two) only and out of which an amount of Rs. 1,84,26,657.00 (Rupees one crore eighty four lakh twenty six thousand six hundred fifty seven) only was deposited to Sribhumi Treasury in head of account "0070 vide Treasury Challan after deducting Rs. 9,70,395.00 (Rupees nine lakh seventy thousand three hundred ninety five) only as GST.

¶48

In pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Court and as per the report of the Committee, sanction is hereby accorded for payment of Rs. 1,84,26,657.00 (Rupees one crore eighty four lakh twenty six thousand six hundred fifty seven) only against the amount of auction deposited in the aforesaid head of account to the Petitioner, who is reportedly appeared today, after proper verification of identity of the payee to be carried out the ADC, Magistracy through the bank account of the petitioner.”

¶49

6. In view of the aforesaid submission and the materials placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5600/2021 has been complied with and hence nothing further survives for adjudication.

¶50

7. Accordingly, the contempt petition accordingly stands closed. The show cause notice issued earlier also stands recalled and discharged.

¶51

8. The letter dated 27.02.2025 is kept on record and marked as

“X”.

Page No.# 6/6

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Shree Bhairav Nath Enterprise v. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Bhairav Nath Enterprise v. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Mandir Pratibekhi Samaj and 2 Ors. Vs Bhabesh Rajbongshi and Anr.

Bikash Kumar More Vs Ashok K.K. Meena and 3 Ors.

Salam Uddin Khan Vs 2) Jagadish Baishya

Rabin Borah Vs Narayan Konwar, IAS and Anr.

Nirangamayee Devi Vs Sanjeeb Kumar Das

Jonah Terrang Vs Tensing Rongpi

Smti Munni Harijan Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi and 2 Ors.

Sri Babul Das Vs Pawan Kumar Borthakur and Anr.

Minhaz Khan and Ors. Vs Ajgar Ali and Ors.

Biswajit Dey and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Tapan Jyoti Dutta Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S Saga Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gojendra Mishra @ Gajendra Mishra and Anr. Vs Adil Khan, IAS and 4 Ors.

Mithu Kalita Alias Mitu Kalita Vs the State of Assam and Othrs