BIDYUT KUMAR BAUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the confiscation proceeding, by his order dated 23.6.83 the Collector at Asansol made directions for issuance of notice upon the O.P. to show cause why the seized 207 mt. coal should not be confiscated to the State as per provision of section 6A of the B.C. Act. By the same order, the Collector confiscated the coal to the State. Again, by the same order, he made directions for disposal of the coal by sale.The propriety of that order and the proceedings are challenged in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Soumen Ghosh, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner bas made several contentions as to the validity of the order. His first submission has been that the Collector passed order under sec. 6A(1) of the B.C. Act in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 6B of the same Act. With regard to the matter coming within the ambit of Section 6A(2) of the Act his submission has been that although there is no statutory provision for issuance of notice and for giving the party chance to be heard, the principle of natural justice demands such a course. On this ground Mr. Ghosh submits that the order of the Collector is without jurisdiction not being in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

(2.) The second point of Mr. Ghosh has been that even on merits, the proceeding cannot be sustained. Referring to the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, he has submitted that the petitioner in this case does not come within the definition of Dealer or Importer so as to attract the provisions of paragraph 3 of the said order. The last submission of Mr. Ghosh has been that even the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, could not extend to commodities other than the food stuff. Therefore, the inclusion of coal within that itself is beyond competence of the State of Bengal and as such ultra vires.

(3.) Mr. Sasanka Ghosh, the learned advocate appeared for the State today for the first time. So long none appeared for the State and it was unrepresented so long. He has raised only one point and it is that this court cannot invoke the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the E.C. Act itself provides for appeal. Coming to the basic question whether this court can interfere in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India I am to observe that it is well settled that if a court or tribunal acts beyond jurisdiction Article 227 can always be invoked and it is the proper remedy. Mr. Sasanka Ghosh for the State has referred to a decision reported in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. P. 38. In my view the decision cited by him supports contrary conclusion. It is clearly laid down in the Supreme Court decision that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. Of course, in exercise of the powers under Article 227 the court cannot go into the question of correctness or otherwise as to the proposition of law. But here the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the whole proceeding and the order of the Collector were without jurisdiction. It is to be examined whether the Collector acted without jurisdiction. That is well within the competence of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Examining the record, I find that all the contentions of Mr. Soumen Ghosh must prevail. There was clearly breach of Section 6B of the B.C. Act. That is a mandatory provision as to the issuance of the show cause and as to chance to be given for making submission. The breach of that provision is quite clear. By order, dated 23.6.83 the Collector directed issuance of notice. Then by the same order, he made directions for confiscations and sale. There was no chance to show cause and no chance to be heard. Of course for proceeding under sec. 6A(2), there is no statutory provision but according to the principle of natural justice, notice is to be issued for that too.