GANESH TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of confiscation of 120 bags of milled boiled rice Is in challenge in this case raising the question that no order of confiscation could be passed without a report as to seizure being made to the Collector of the district and that no order of confiscation could be passed by any officer excepting the Collector of the district. In the instant case the order of confiscation has been passed by the S. D. O. The petitioner who claims to hold a licence under the Orissa Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1954 states to have loaded the articles seized in a truck bearing registration number OAS 2827 at his godown located near opp. party No. 3 and despatched the same to the destination at Rourkela to opp. party. No. 4. The truck was inspected at Beheramal Crossing at Jharsuguda by Inspector of Supplies who recorded the statement of the driver of the truck and seized the article. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 30 -3 -1987 under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' by the S. D. O., opp. party No. 2, to show cause against confiscation of the goods, and order was passed on 15 -9 -1987 by him after considering the show cause filed by this petitioner confiscating the goods. The appeal carried by the petitioner having failed, he has come before this Court.

(2.) IT is the submission of Mr. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the report of seizure was compulsorily to be mace to the Collector before any action for confiscation could be initiated and such procedure having not been followed, the confiscation proceeding has become bad and, secondly, under the provision of the section it is only the Collector of the district who could pass the order of confiscation. While such stand is resisted by the State, it is contended by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that the provisions of the Orissa, Rice and Paddy Procurement(ley) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 83 had been violated by opp. party No. 3 who was the real consignor of the goods and had merely taken refuge behind the trade name of the petitioner so as to avoid compulsory levy of 50%. For an appreciation of the submissions made, the provisions of Section 6 -A of the Act are necessary to be extracted : '6 -A. Confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils : (1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Col lector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether of not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of - (a) the essential commodity so seized ; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found ; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity - xx xx xx (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under Sub -section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the pubic interest so to do, he may - - - - - (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or tinder any other law for the time being in force ; or (ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction: xx xx xx' A plain reading of the provisions shows that a report of seizure is to be made without unreasonable delay to the Collector of the district. The Collector, if he thinks it expedient, may direct the commodity so seized to be produced before him for inspection, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may direct its confiscation. Under Sub -section (2) if the commodity is of perishable nature or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest, the Collector may direct the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, and if no such price is fixed to be sold in public auction. It is for such reason Mr. Lal submits that since undisputedly a report of seizure has to be made to the Collector of the district, it is he alone who can direct after perusal of the report for production of the commodity for his inspection and after inspection it is he alone who can direct the confiscation. According to him, this fact is clear from the provisions of Sub -section (2) where the Collector is to direct disposal of the commodity either after receipt of the report of seizure or on inspection of the commodity. Since receipt of the report is to be by the District Collector alone, the word 'or' occurring in Sub -section (2) would mean 'and' and inspection as such must be by the District Collector.

(3.) 'Collector' is defined in the Act under Section 2 (ia) the definition being inserted by the Amendment Act 92 of 1976 giving it an expended meaning by including the Additional Collector and such other officer, not below the rank of Subdivisional Officer, as may be authorised by the Collector to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under the Act. Ordinarily wherever the word Collector is used in Section 6 -A, as per the definition it would mean not only the Collector of the district but also such other officers who are authorised' within the scope of the definition to function as the Collector. It is, however the submission on behalf of the petitioner that as -the report was to be compulsorily made to the Collector of the district with the subsequent word 'Collector' occurring in Sub -section (1) who is authorised to direct production of the commodity for inspection, after the inspection of the commodity so seized it is only the Collector who can direct confiscation after the inspection of the seized commodity as otherwise any other collector would have no occasion to knew about the seizure, the report having been made only to the District Collector.