Allowed

Naresh Sah v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Apr 2019CWJC/6034/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Patna granted an order directing the release of seized rice stock to the petitioner. The petitioner sought release arguing rice storage does not require a license under a specific Gazette notification of 2002. Dismissing the State's failure to file a counter affidavit, the court directed the District Magistrate to approve the release upon surety.

What did the court decide?

A one-week order directing the Collector cum District Magistrate, Katihar to issue an appropriate release order for the seized rice upon the petitioner furnishing sureties to the satisfaction of the a

Naresh Sah Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6034 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Naresh Sah Son of Moti Sah Resident of Balthi Maheshpur, P.S.- Kursaila, district- Katihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The Senior Superintendent of Police Katihar.

¶8

The District Magistrate Katihar.

¶9

The Sub Divisional Officer Katihar.

¶10

The District Supply Officer Katihar.

¶11

The Marketing Officer Katihar.

¶12

The Block Supply Officer Kursaila, Katihar.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.S. Raza Ahmad (Aag5)

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶19

3 17-04-2019

¶20

In this case on 28.03.2019 this court had granted time to the State to file a counter affidavit with prima facie material to show that the rice in question are the government subsidized rice. No counter affidavit has been filed. There is neither any application seeking extension of time however when the case was called out learned counsel for the Sate submitted that because the authorities were busy in election therefore no instruction has come and again prayer has been made for sometime.

¶21

In this case the petitioner is seeking release of 439.68 quintals of rice kept in 913 bags and one electronic weighing

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.6034 of 2019(3) dt.17-04-2019 2/3

¶23

machine which were allegedly seized by respondents in connection with Kursaila P.S. Case No. 198/2018 on 04.11.2018 registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶24

The allegation against the petitioner is that the foodgrains were illegally stored and the petitioner failed to produce papers with regard to stored foodgrains. It is submitted that confiscation proceeding is also pending in this case.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure has been made illegally inasmuch the Block Supply Officer is well aware of the fact that for storage of rice the control order is not applicable and there is no law otherwise providing for obtaining any license from any authority for storage license. Learned counsel submits that despite time granted to the State no material has been brought on record to support the allegation.

¶26

A copy of the gazette notification dated 15^th February, 2002 has been brought on record to show that under paragraph 3 thereof it is clearly provided that “ With the coming into effect of this order any dealer may freely buy, stock, sell, transport, distribute, dispose, acquire, use or consume any quantity of wheat, paddy/rice, coarsegrains, sugar, edible oilseeds and edible oils and shall not require a permit or license therefor

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.6034 of 2019(3) dt.17-04-2019 3/3

¶28

under any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the State is unable to contest the submissions of the petitioner as regards the notification dated 15^th February 2002. A copy of which is on the record as Annexure ‘3’ to the writ application.

¶30

This court finds that in similar allegations there is a consistent view of Hon’ble Division Bench as well as Single Judge to direct release of foodgrains such as rice which is not a controlled item on petitioner’s furnishing adequate surety. This court thus deems it just and proper to follow the same line.

¶31

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this court directs the Collector cum District Magistrate, Katihar to issue an appropriate release order of rice in question within one week on the petitioner furnishing sureties to the satisfaction of the Collector cum District Magistrate, Katihar.

¶32

The writ application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶34

Rajeev/-

¶35

Naresh Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashoka Kumar Patel Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Aziza Asgari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Akhileshwar Prasad Singh Vs The Regional manager, State Bank Of India and Ors.

Sayed Tasveer Mustafa Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Meena Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.