P SIVAPUTHIRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALAGUMALAI learned counsel for the petitioner, raised a very interesting point in these petitions, which have been filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the return of the goods seized on the ground that there had been no licence obtained by the aggrieved petitioner herein. In this view, Mr. ALAGUMALAI contends that the power given under S. 482 Cr.P.C. is wide enough to order these applications in spite of the fact that there is a section, viz. S. 6-E introduced in the year 1976 in the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Act 10 of 1955) which says generally that the court's jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of a tribunal or authority is not to have its influence before actually the executive authorities mentioned in the enactment are moved by the concerned person, who is aggrieved of any order, including the order of seizure of the goods. In the instant case 37 tins of vanaspathi and 16 tins of oil have been seized, and they are now in the custody of the respondent. It is further submitted by Mr. ALAGUMALAI that though a writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or similar writ or order by this court is pending and it is to be actually heard within two or three days, yet it is not as if that this court is prevented from making an order in favour of the petitioner in spite of the pendency of the said writ petition, which is admittedly filed for the issuance of the challan relating to this transaction. What is more. Mr. ALAGUMALAI submits it is not as if that the petitioner has been carrying on business in vanaspathi without obtaining a proper licence. As a matter of fact, licence is available for the period concerned and it is quite in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act that this seizure has been effected

(2.) MR. Alagumalai further submits that the High Courts are actually created by the Organic Law of the land, viz., the Constitution of India and especially when Art. 214 of the Constitution is in existence in the Organic law of the land, it is but necessary that this court, viz., High Court of Judicature at Madras, which was originally a Chartered High Court in that it was also one which was the subject matter dealt with by the Charter issued by the British Empire during the reign of Victoria as a chartered High Court, should have superintendence and also power vested with it so as to have overriding influence over any order in order to see that justice is done. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner herein by MR. Alagumalai that neither the pendency of a writ petition regarding the issuance of a challan nor the existence of the provision of S. 6-E in the Act 10 of 1955, will bar the jurisdiction of this court under S. 482 Cr.P.C

(3.) MR. Karpagavinayagam, learned Government Advocate No. III, inter alia further contends that 'any other court' (which) occurs in this Section 6-E, which was inserted as new section by Section 7 of the amended Act 92 of 1976, in this parent Act viz., Act 10 of 1955, clearly bars the jurisdiction of the courts including the High Court and as such neither the coming into existence of this High Court, viz., the High Court of Judicature at Madras by the charter issued by the British realm or that it is now that a subject dealt with under the Organic Law of the land, viz., the Constitution of India, subsequent to the promulgation of this country as a sovereign democratic Republic, yet the very same concept in the law viz., that including the High Court is only a court of law and as such it has to interpret the law and it is not above law. Because it is only the legislature that is a sovereign body which can legislate and the court does not legislate and therefore when an amendment has been introduced in this enactment specially prohibiting the jurisdiction of any other court, the same includes High Court at Madras also