MAHIMA PRASAD SAHU Vs. COLLECTOR CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner calls in question legality of the proceeding initiated under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, the Act), before the District Collector, Cuttack. The primary challenge is to the order dated 31-3-1993, directing sale of the seized articles during pendency of the proceeding.

(2.) Background facts which led to the institution of the proceeding, as evident from the documents annexed to the writ application are as follows :- On 1-5-1992, 110 bundles of white papers, each bundle containing 6 reams, having size of 51 x 66 cm. and label of Surya Chandra Paper Mills Ltd. Mareduliaka (Near Mandapeta) in Andhra Pradesh were found in the business premises-cum-godown of M/s. Dharmagrantha Store, Alisabazar, Cuttack without any challan or cash memos, in support of such possession. No stock or issue register was maintained. The articles were seized. Circumstances of seizure as indicated in the seizure documents were that the authorities under the Act got credible information that the M/s. Srikrishna Trading Company, Bankabazar, Cuttack (opposite party No. 3), a partnership firm, was clandestinely carrying on business in white printing papers, colour papers, Cream wove papers and some other varieties of papers in collusion with the present petitioner and other partners of said M/s. Dharmagrantha Store which has resulted in disruption of maintenance of supply / availability of papers at fair price at the market. A report under S. 6A(1) and (2) of the Act for confiscation was submitted, for the alleged violation of Cl. 3(2) of the Orissa Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (in short, the Order) before Collector, Cuttack. The matter was posted to 3-3-1993, on the question of sale of the seized properties during the pendency of the proceeding. The District Collector directed sale of the seized articles as the same was subject to speedy and natural decay.

(3.) According to Mr. B. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, proceeding itself is misconceived because the Order applies only to a ";dealer"; and the petitioner being not a dealer, the question of his maintaining ";Stock and Price Board"; in terms of the Order does not arise. It is, therefore, submitted that the interim order should not have been passed because the paper is not an article which is subject to speedy and natural decay. Mr. S. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the question whether the petitioner is a dealer or not, and whether he has contravened any of the provisions of the Act can be effectively agitated in the main proceeding itself, and this Court should not interfere in the matter in its writ jurisdiction at the present juncture.