SATISH CHANDRA BANK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order dated 5,3,1982 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganas in misc. Case No. 15 of 1980 directing confiscation of ascertain quantity of sugar in exercise of his power under the Essential commodities Act.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partner of a firm dealing in grocery cum Stationery articles for which the firm has obtained a licence from the appropriate authority. In course of a search and raid held on 6. 11. 1979 an Inspector of Police of the Enforcement Branch seized 58 tags of sugar and found the actual stock not to agree with the entries in the Stock Register,. Thereupon a case being Belgharia P. S. Case No. 12 dated 6 11. 79 under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities act was started against the petitioner and his other partners for violation of para 3 (2)of the Declaration of stock and price of essential Commodities Order, 1979 and para 3 of Sugar (Price Control) Order 1979. Thereafter a confiscation proceeding under Section 6a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was initiated and a notice was issued upon the petitioner and his partner directing them to show cause, if any. The petitioner and his partner filed written objection but the S. D. O. , Barrackpur by his order dated September 30, 1980 directed confiscation and sale of the entire stock of sugar. Being aggrieved at the order the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 6c of the Essential Commodities Act before the Judicial Authority being the Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas at Alipore. The appeal was allowed. The order for confiscation and sale was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the S. D. O. , Barrackpur for fresh proceeding from the stage of the notice. Thereafter a notice of confiscation dated 8. 4. 81 was again issued. The notice is alleged to be defective in material particulars and is otherwise bad in law. The date of hearing in the said case was however shifted from time to time and was finally fixed for hearing on 5. 3. 1982. The petitioner's lawyer who was entrusted to look after the case-having fallen ill on the said date, could not participate at the hearing as a result where of the case was heard ex parte to the prejudice of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he came to know about the order of confiscation from his lawyer only in the first week of August, 1982 and hence he could not take any steps in regard to the order for confiscation at an earlier date. The order is alleged to be illegal, defective and without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE petitioner, therefore, prays for setting aside the said order. The application has been heard upon notice to and on contest by the State.