DEVENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 3-10-2001, Annexure P/2, whereby the decision of the State Government dated 10-9-2001 has been communicated by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Gwalior, indicating that a policy decision has been taken to the effect that apart from the districts, namely, Mandsour, Neemach, Ujjain, Shajapur and Ratlam the poppy-straw which was covered under the licences that expired on 31-3-1-001 should be destroyed within 30 days.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfurled in the writ petition are that the petitioner was granted a licence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Madhya Pradesh) Rules, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'] to effect wholesale transaction in regard to poppy-straw. The said licence was valid till 31-3-2001. After expiry of the period the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence under Rule 37-R of the Rules but the same was not renewed. It is put forth that as on 31-3-2001 the quantity of 265 Qnts. 31 Kgs. 500 Gms. poppy-straw was in possession of the petitioner and he submitted an application to the Excise Officer, Sehore so that, the poppy- straw should not be destroyed. The said application, as is apparent was filed vide Annexure P/3 on 31-10-2001. It is putforth in the writ petition that a poppy-straw merchant of Calcutta had made an offer to purchase the same by depositing requisite export fees by his letter contained in Annexure P/4, but no permission has been granted and a decision has been taken to destroy the poppy-straw.

(3.) MR . Manish Datt, learned counsel for the petitioner raised three fold contentions namely, (i) when the petitioner had applied for renewal of the licence as envisaged under the Rules there is no justification to destroy the poppy-straw which is in his possession; (ii) he has indicated in Annexure P/3 that he had submitted the application to the competent officer prior to 31-10-2001 but as no action has been taken, he may be permitted to sell the stock to the purchaser who is from Calcutta; and (iii) the application which was filed having not been decided by the competent authority, such coercive steps are wholly unwarranted.