MUKESH CHAND Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIJESH Kumar, J. Heard Sri Yogesh Kesharwani for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Sirswal for the State.

(2.) THE brief question involved in this petition relates to the opportunity which is sought to be provided to an owner of the goods which have been seized and confis cated under Section 6-A of the Essential- Commodities Act, 1955, by the Collector by an order passed under Section 6-B of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has vehemently urged that according to sub-sec tion (1) of Section 6-B of the Act, notice is to be given either to the owner or to the person from whom the goods are seized. It is also submitted that in any case, the petitioners had since put forward their case before the authority concerned, there was substantial compliance with the provisions contained under Section 6-B of the Act. It is, however, difficult to appreciate the arguments as ad vanced on behalf of the State. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that once the petitioners had put forward their claim as owners of the wheat bags, it was necessary for the authority concerned to give notice, indicating the grounds of confis cation, to the petitioners in relation to wheat bags. To appreciate the above argu ment, one may have to closely scrutinize the provision, namely, Section 6-B of the Act as quoted above. The provision is in terms that no order of confiscation is to be passed unless the owner of such goods is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confis cate the commodity. It also provides, "or" the notice is given to a person from whom the commodity is seized. The whole inten tion of the provision is clear that it is the owner who is first entitled to the notice. It cannot be the sweet will of the authority concerned to give notice indicating the grounds of confiscation to either of the two. In case, where the owner is known or some body comes forward claiming to be the owner of the goods seized, notice at the first instance has to be given to him. The alterna tive which has been provided in the provision seems to be where the owner of the goods is not known or nobody is coming forward claiming to be the owner of the goods and in that event, the notice if given to the person from whom the commodity is seized, would only suffice. There may be circumstances in which it may not be pos sible to trace out the owner. In that event also, there would be no option left but to give notice to the person from whose cus tody the goods are seized. It is difficult to envisage a situation in which the authority concerned may have the owner as well as the person from whose custody the goods are seized, before it, but on its own sweet will, may prefer to give notice to the person from whom the goods are seized ignoring the owner of the goods. That would frustrate the whole purpose of the provision itself. The owner and the person from whose cus tody the goods are seized, are not inter changeable. The only possible interpreta tion of the provision as contained under Section 6-B of the Act is that in event, where the owner is not known or is not traceable or in some special circumstances where it may not be possible to serve such owner with the notice, it will meet the requirement by giving notice to the person from whom the goods are seized. As observed earlier, the order itself indicates that the notice was sent only to Nirmal Kumar from whose Atta Chakki and godown the goods are said to have been seized even though the petitioners had come forward claiming ownership of the wheat and flour bags.