K B SANNAPPA Vs. JOINT COLLECTIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The inaction of the respondents, in returning the sum of Rs. 12,180/- towards the value of the paddy confiscated from the petitioners, is questioned in this Writ Petition. The undisputed facts are that 60 bags of paddy along with tractor was seized from the petitioners' custody by respondent No. 2 on 20.06.1997. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') were initiated in respect of the seized stocks. By order, dated 20.12.1999, respondent No. 1 has ordered confiscation of the seized paddy besides imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/- from the owner of the seized vehicle. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2000 before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Anantapur. By judgment dated 17.04.2003, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of confiscation. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite passage of nearly 10 years, the respondents have not paid back the value of the paddy with interest.

(2.) When this Writ Petition came up before this Court on 18.02.2013, the case was adjourned at the request of the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Since then the case has undergone three adjournments. Till now no counter affidavit has been filed. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has not disputed that the order of confiscation passed by respondent No. 1 was set aside by the District and Sessions Court, Anantapur and that the value of the paddy is liable to be returned to the petitioners.

(3.) Under Section 6C (2) of the Act, where the order passed under Section 6-A of the Act is modified or annulled by the State Government or where Prosecution is instituted under Section 6-A, and the person is acquitted, and in either case, if it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, such a person is entitled to the payment of the price of the commodity as if the same has been sold to the Government, with reasonable interest from the date of the seizure of the essential commodity. Even though the confiscation order was set aside in Criminal Appeal by the District and Sessions Court, as far back as the year 2003, the respondents have failed to return the value of the goods to the petitioners. Therefore, this inaction on the part of the respondents is totally unjustifiable and arbitrary.