TARACHAND AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter involves the impugned orders under Annexures-3, 4 & 5 involving the Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner being the Proprietor of M/s.Bhagabati Rice Mill was appointed as Storage Agent for the year, 1981-82 by the Collector, Bolangir following the provisions of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1956. While the petitioner was continuing as such, following the direction of the Collector, Bolangir, the Executive Magistrate, Titlagarh verified the stock in the godown of the petitioner with the help of the staff of Supply Department but without any prior notice to the petitioner. It is alleged that on the plea of investigation, the Executive Magistrate, the Assistant Civil Supply Inspector of Supply Department along with many other persons entered into the godown of the petitioner forcibly and lifted rice bags without caring to the protest of the watchman posted them. They also took away the Stock Register and Stock Cards maintained by the petitioner. Even the Supply Officer did not inform the petitioner as to what is the quantity of rice and what are the documents taken away in the said verification process. Based on lodging of a written report by the Executive Magistrate, the O.I.C., Kantabanji Police Station initiated G.R. Case No.212/1982 corresponding to T.R. No.742/1983 involving the petitioner in the Court of J.M.F.C., Kantabanji. Consequently, charges were framed under Sections 7 & 9 of the Essential Commodities Act and also under Sections 406 & 420 of I.P.C. For failure to establish the case against the petitioner, the G.R. Case was dismissed on 31.3.1994 thereby acquitting the petitioner from the charges.

(3.) While the matter stood thus, the Collector, Bolangir filed a requisition before the Certificate Officer, Titlagarh, O.P.3 under Sections 3 & 5 of the O.P.D.R. Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as "the Act, 1962") for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,11,145.57 as dues in addition with penalty of Rs.2,09,130.39 from the petitioner. Based on a notice involving the OPDR proceeding along with the certificate of recovery, the petitioner appeared before the Certificate Officer and filed his application denying liability and challenging the proceeding on the premises of no ascertainment of the dues sought to be recovered involving any proceeding under any law. The proceeding initiated against the petitioner was allowed on rejection of the protest of the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act, 1962.