Dismissed

M S Padmawati Gas Agency through Its Proprietor K C Jain v. District Administration

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2012WPC/4515/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the redemption amount of Rs. 3,00,000 fixed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate for releasing seized gas ovens and cylinders. The Court held that valuation falls under the domain of criminal proceedings and cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially where no bills were produced by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as there is no substance in the plea for reduction of redemption charges; the matter lies within the criminal trial process.

M S Padmawati Gas Agency through Its Proprietor K C Jain Vs District Administration — Jharkhand HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 4515 of 2012

¶3

M/s Padmawati Gas Agency …… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Another …… Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL

¶4

For the Petitioner : M/s Raj Mangal Singh, Sidhartha Roy, Advocates For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, J.C. to A.G.

¶5

¶6

02/Dated: 6th October, 2012

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the seized articles by the respondents were released at a higher price. The respondents evaluated the redemption amount at Rs.3,00,000/whereas, the petitioner is challenging the redemption amount of 29 gas ovens and 25 gas cylinders as Rs.75,000/- and therefore, the present petition has been preferred.

¶8

Counsel for the State vehemently opposes this petition and submitted that the present petitioner is facing criminal charges for the offence under Sections 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for which an F.I.R. has already been lodged, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the present petition and for release of this seized articles a criminal writ petition being W.P(Cr.) No. 445 of 2009 was instituted by the petitioner wherein this Court vide order dated 17^th September, 2011 (Annexure-2) passed an order for release of the seized articles by charging market value as a redemption value.

¶9

It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that as per the best assessment the redemption charges applied by the respondents for release of seized articles in question is Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore, the petitioner cannot say that the redemption charges are much higher and the market value is only at Rs.75,000/-. It is further stated that the figure coming from the mouth of the petitioner is totally an arbitrary figure. There is no basis for the said figure of Rs.75,000/-. In fact, the whole criminal case is going on and if the petitioner is winning the case, this amount will also be liable to be refunded and looking to this case, repayment with the redemption charges has been applied by the Deputy Commissioner-cumDistrict Magistrate, Bokaro for release of articles in question and the articles have been released as an interim measure, which is always subject to the final outcome in the criminal or civil case and no market value can be decided in a writ petition especially for the articles of this type of nature.

¶10

¶11

It is stated by the counsel for the State that the petitioner is dealing with such type of articles day to day. They have not presented any bill from their own agency and therefore, the redemption charges applied by the respondent-State may not be reduced because it has a direct nexus with the reproduction of these seized articles, if required in the criminal court and therefore, the petition may not be entertained by this Court.

¶12

Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly on the following facts and reasons:-

¶13

(i) It appears that the present petitioner is facing criminal charges. F.I.R. has been lodged against this petitioner. There is alleged violation of Sections 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as well as for the offences under Sections 285 and 286 of the Indian Penal Code. The articles which have been seized are 29 gas ovens and 25 gas cylinders.

¶14

(ii) It further appears that a criminal writ petition being W.P.(Cr.) No. 445 of 2009 was instituted by this petitioner for release of the seized articles and vide order dated 17^th September, 2011 (Annexure-2), this Court has passed an order for release of the articles by taking market value.

¶15

(iii) Thus, it appears that the goods in question which are 29 gas ovens and 25 gas cylinders have been released with a redemption charges of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The petitioner vehemently submitted that this valuation of Rs.3,00,000/- is very high, which should have been Rs.75,000/-. This Court is not entering into this question of valuation at this stage because the redemption charges have been applied as per the direction given by this Court. Even otherwise also, if the civil or criminal case is decided, in favour of the petitioner, the amount will be released in favour of the petitioner. The market value at this stage cannot be evaluated with a mathematical nicety and statistical accuracy. This is infact not a market value in the strict sense. This is a redemption charges applied by the Deputy Commissioner-cumDistrict Magistrate, Bokaro for release of the seized articles. In fact, these articles are kept intact as they are and if need arises in the criminal court, the same may be presented before the court. In view of these facts and lot of arguments canvassed about the market

¶16

¶17

value, the word 'market value' has nothing much do with this case, as stated hereinabove. Rs. 3,00,000/- has been fixed by respondent no. 2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro as a redemption charges and redemption charges is always to be paid by the petitioner if they want to get the seized articles released and the same will also be returned if the petitioner succeeds in criminal and civil case, if any. Redemption charges works as a guarantor for production of the articles before the competent court in case there is a need. This is not a sale of seized articles at all. Sale has a connection with the market value, but, as stated hereinabove whatever amount is fixed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro is not a sale value, but, it is a redemption charges for the release of the seized articles which has an inbuilt duty, vested with the petitioner for production of those articles before the competent trial court in case of any necessity.

¶18

In view of these facts and looking to the valuation of the seized articles at Rs.75,000/- has no basis at all given by the petitioner. Petitioner in day to day deals with these type of articles, but, no bill or no voucher of

¶19

these articles has ever been produced before this Court. Even otherwise also, this Court is not entertaining this writ petition for reduction of the redemption charges. Hence, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.

¶20

(D.N. Patel, J)

¶21

M S Padmawati Gas Agency through Its Proprietor K C Jain v. District Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Padmawati Gas Agency through Its Proprietor K C Jain v. District Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gour Singh Munda Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ashutosh Chakraborty Vs Sri Rajesh Ranjan And Ors.

State of Jharkhand And Ors. Vs Prem Lata Sinha And Ors.

Shashidhar Bagway Vs Panchayat Raj

Tausif Raza Vs Human Resources

M S Varun Steel Industry Vs Banks