RANJIT DAS AND ORS. Vs. SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that during the midst of hearing as to whether Khansari sugar is exempted from the definition of sugar and the matter is being debated is this Court. No whisper was made on the previous occasion. Today, this Court has been apprised by the leaned Advocate appearing on behalf of the concerned respondent authority that the goods in question has been sold it appears that the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is order dated 19.8.97 passed by the Sub divisional Magistrate Basirhat empowered to act as Collector in E.C. Case No. 55 of 10.6.97. The service copy has been shown from which it appears that the concerned Officer being the Sub divisional Officer, Basirhat has been served with the copy of this writ petition on 8.9.97 itself and on the day thereafter on 9.9.97 the Impugned order was passed. Thereafter, it appears from the record as handed over to this Court that is not waste a direction was given to complete the entire disposal process by holding an auction by 9.9.97.

(2.) Today in the midst of hearing when the learned Advocate for the petitioner has prayed for release of the goods on any term as may be Imposed by the Court and while considering the same a news has come to this Court that the goods have already been disposed of. The learned Advocate of the petitioner has stated that the price of the goods will be about Rs 2,60,000.00 and further allegations are being made and the petitioners may be required to file affidavit that there is an unholy alliance going to the department to deliberately under sale the goods and to make abuse of the entire process of the procedure. This Court does neither appreciate nor reconcile idea after getting the notice of the petition on the next day not only the order has been passed by limiting the time for disposal and in hurry goods worth substantial amount had been sold and disposed of. This is not behavioural scenario of the functional pattern of the Government employees This Court feels that this matter should be heard out threadbare and if it appears that there is something wrong which has motivated them to accellerate the process to make a march over the right of the petitioner then the persons involved in the process will not only be held liable but this Court will direct investigating agencies to make a thorough enquiry and a demonstration may be requested to deal with them very seriously.

(3.) It appears that because of the purposive gave resorted to by the handful employees, such extraordinary deal has been demonstrated to have toe goods auctioned This Court will reserve its right to go into the question as to whether the proper price has been fetched and what should be the price of the goods. In view of the suggestion given by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner by way of abundant caution, the concerned persons are hereby warned definite drastic consequences may be found waiting if anything wrong is found with them. Legal procedures have been evolved for the welfare of the people sad not for their detriment so that the person Involved in the process can do anything wrong for extraneous consideration. This Court hereby directs that the entire report of the auction proceeding to be placed before this Court and the same of the person who is held the auction and how advertisement has been given about the auction.A doubt has been expressed by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that the goods are still lying then this Court can consider the matter leniently provided the goods are returned to the petitioners forthwith against granting of receipt without nay terms and conditions. This portion of the order is only by way of observation of this Court as this Court has been apprised by a positive statement and of production of records that the goods are no longer there.