PANKAJ DAL MILL Vs. STATE OF UTTARPRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Area Rationing Officer, Varanasi, on 5th July, 1984, conducted a raid on the premises of Mis pankaj Dal Mill, a partnership firm. On that every day the said officer lodged a first information report alleging, inter alia, that the provisions as contained in the U.P. Essential Commodities (Display of Price arid stocks and Control and supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) had been contravened and, therefore, an offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been committed. The Area Rationing Officer, it appears, also seized the stock of Dal which was found at the premises of the said firm at the time of the raid. An order has been passed for the sale of the seized community. The petitioner feels aggrieved, hence this petition under Article 226 of the constitution.

(2.) The commodity seized was given in the Supurdagi of one Sri Lautu Ram, who has been arrayed as the respondent no. 3 of this petition. A notice was issued purporting to be under section 6B of the Act directing the said firm to show cause as to why the commodity seized from it should not be confiscated. The Officer concerned fixed 31st July, 1984 for the appearance of the party concerned, in proceedings initiated for the confiscation of the commodity. A reply was submitted by and on behalf of the firm on 14th August, 1984, stating therein inter alia, that no offence whatsoever had been committed. It was prayed that the proceedings for the confiscation should be dropped and the commodity seized may be placed in the custody of the said firm. It appears that the proceedings for the confiscation of-the commodity as contemplated by the provisions of Section 6A of the Act are still pending.

(3.) The Area Rationing Officer, on 16th July, 1984, passed an order purporting to be under section 6A(2) of the Act directing that the seized commodity should be put to public auction as he felt that the commodity was subject to speedy and natural decay. He also recorded a finding that, even otherwise, it- was expedient in public interest that the commodity should be sold. The Officer directed that the notice should be issued and the matter may be placed before him on 31st July, 1984. It appears, a reply was given by one of the partners of the firm and it was pointed out that in fact no offence had been committed and the first information report had been lodged by the Area Rationing Officer on false allegations. It was also alleged that Dal, the commodity which was the subject matter of the proceedings was not even weighed and without doing so it was just mentioned in the first information report that the quantity found, at the spot was not in consonance with the entries made in the relevant registers.. The firm also pleaded that, if the commodity was put to sale, it would suffer an irreparable loss. It also gave an undertaking that it would not, in future, take the plea that the commodity, had decayed or spoiled on account of the seizure. It was reiterated that the custody of the commodity should be given to the firm on its furnishing adequate security. The concerned Officer, on 27th August, 1984, rejected the pleas raised and the prayer made by and on behalf of the firm.