Allowed

Ranjit Kumar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Nov 2013CWJC/5791/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the confiscation of their tractor and trailer under the Essential Commodities Act for transporting food grains. The court held that confiscation cannot proceed without establishing a violation of a specific statutory order and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Confiscation proceedings were quashed and the tractors were released to the petitioners.

Ranjit Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5791 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Ranjit Kumar, S/o Surendra Prasad Bhagat, R/o Banmankhi, P.S. Banmankhi, District- Purnea. 2. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Bhagat, S/o Surendra Prasad Bhagat, R/O Banmankhi, P.S. Banmankhi, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Araria. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D. N. Tiwari For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, GP-2. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 03 11-11-2013 The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Collector, Araria in Confiscation Case No.18/201112 under Section-6 A of the Essential Commodities Act (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), as affirmed in appeal by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Confiscation Appeal No.04 of 2012 (Trial No.01 of 2012) in so far as it relates to the order of confiscation of Tractor, bearing Registration No.BR 11L/1938 and Trailor, 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 Trailor was intercepted along with 14.5 quintals of rice and

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.5791 of 2013 (03) dt.11-11-2013

¶5

2/4

¶6

24.5 quintals of wheat. The Tractor and Trailor with food grains 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 food grains and the Tractor-Trailor. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the Tractor-Trailor. 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 food grains 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.

¶7

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.

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.5791 of 2013 (03) dt.11-11-2013

¶9

3/4

¶10

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 to 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.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State could not show any provision or any order which can be said to have been violated.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that merely because the sacks, in which food grains were found packed

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.5791 of 2013 (03) dt.11-11-2013

¶14

4/4

¶15

bore F.C.I. marking does not by itself violate any statutory order. It is also submitted that once the food grains 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 food grains. That is what has happened. Merely because the food grains 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.

¶16

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 Trailor aforesaid has to be released to the petitioners forthwith. Accordingly, Annexures-3&4 are quashed and the writ petition is allowed.

¶17

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)

¶18

AFR Trivedi/-

Ranjit Kumar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Satyanand Sharma Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Sudhish Nandan Singh Vs The Bihar State Power Distribution Company Ltd. and Ors.

M/s Nutan Plastic Works Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Md. Hafizur Rahman Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vedanand Sah and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Mahaldar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.