HAR GOVIND Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, he is a tenureholder and had sown crops of ground nut, Jwar, Jau, Wheat Grain and maize over his land. In order to facilitate the sale of agricutural produce the petitioner has taken on rent House No. 580 Main Road, Babina Cantt. district Jhansi. On 29-7-1991 a first information report was lodged by the respondent No. 2 and according to the petitioner foodgrains belonging to him were seized. In respect of the seized foodgrains the Additional District Magistrate, Jhansi has passed an order dated 12-8-1991 which is contained in Annexure "8" to the writ petition. The seized commodities have been ordered to be auctioned on 12-8-1991 under Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter described as the "Act"). It is this order passed under Section 6-A(2) of the Act which has been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has first urged that the entire seizure proceedings are bad inasmuch as the petitioner has not committed any contravention of any order issued under Section 3 / 7 of the Act. We are, however, of the opinion that at the time of the passing of the order under Section 6-A(2) of the Act, the Competent Authority has not to go into the question regarding the validity of the criminal proceedings which have been launched against the petitioner. The only limited purpose for the exercise of the power under Section 6-A(2) of the Act is to pass appropriate orders in case the seized commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do. The argument raised, therefore, has no force.

(3.) It has then been urged that the order under Section 6-A(2) of the Act has been passed without any opportunity to the petitioner. So far as this Court is concerned this precise question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Jagdamba Trading Company v. State of U. P., 1986 EFR 461 where it has been held that in a case under Section 6-A(2) the Legislature has not povided any right to any person for being heard and the opportunity of hearing was expressly excluded.