GEETHA GEN MERCHANTS VIKARABAD Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein filed Writ Petition No. 13593 of 1995 questioning the action of the first respondent in seizing 45 quintals of sunflower oil and the vehicle carrying the same. A direction was sought to drop the proceedings under Ss. 6-A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The goods in question were seized by the first respondent under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982. The said Control Order was promulgated under S. 3 read with S. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act. Condition No. 7 of the licence issued under the said Control Order was alleged to have been violated. The learned single Judge found that there was prima facie violation of Condition No. 7 warranting further enquiry and, therefore, the seizure as a whole is not vulnerable to attack. Before the learned single Judge, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in P. Ramachandra Chetty v. Secretary, Ministry of Food, Government of India (1978) 2 ALT 212 : (AIR 1979 Andh Pra 28) in which it was held that even before the search leading to seizure is made, reasonable belief has to be formed and in the absence of material disclosing formation of such reasonable belief, the goods are liable to be released and relief could be accordingly granted in a writ petition. That decision was rightly distinguished by the learned single Judge on the ground that the ratio of that decision has no application to a case of search of vehicle in transit and the seizure as a sequel to such search for violation of the provisions of the relevant Control Order. However, the learned single Judge directed that the proceedings for confiscation in respect of the seized goods could only relate to 375 Kgs for which there was no way bill and the remaining stock cannot possibly be confiscated as there was no contravention of the Control Order. The writ petition was partly allowed by directing unconditional release of 41.25 quintals of oil, and the balance of 375 Kgs and the vehicle on the condition of the writ petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 25,000.00. As the relief granted in the writ petition was not to the satisfiaction of the appellants, the present writ appeal was filed. The learned Judges admitted the writ appeal and directed the matter to be posted before a Full Bench, while doubting the correctness of the judgment in D. Ramachandra Chetty v. Secretary, Ministry of Food, Government of India (1978) 2 ALT 212 : (AIR 1979 Andh Pra 28). The question was formulated as follows:"Should there be any order of release of seized goods or vehicle, which are said to be involved in offences, in exercise of the power of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is the question involved in the instant appeal.

(2.) It is brought to our notice that subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition and before the writ appeal came up for admission, the Collector passed an order on 1-4-1996 under S. 6-A read with S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act and directed confiscation of 3.75 quintals of oil and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,500.00 on account of involvement of the vehicle in the illicit transportation of oil. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have no grievance against the said order of confiscation and that is the reason why the appellants did not pursue the matter further. The learned counsel for the appellants, in fact, suggested that in view of this fact situation, the writ appeal may be dismissed as infructuous.

(3.) However, an issue which the Division Bench felt to be of sufficient importance having been referred for determination of the Full Bench on the basis of the then existing facts and as we also find that the decision referred to in the reference order is not correctly decided and the said decision is likely to be cited as a precedent, we consider it appropriate and proper to answer the question referred to us.