STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER Vs. GUMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1996 and 19.6.1996 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore in S.J Money Appeal No.6 of 1995-III partly modifying the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1995 and 27.1.1995 respectively passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in M.S No.14/109 of 1991-III of 1987.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that he was the authorised agent and partner of Shri S.S Das. He had the licence for purchasing, storing and selling of rice and paddy under clause 4(2) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. On 29.7.1982, he transported 100 quintal of rice in 100 bags to Baripada in his truck. The Asst. Civil Supplies Officer, Balasore seized the truck at Nilgiri. An FIR was lodged. The document was seized by the police. He approached the authority for release of the truck along with rice. But then, the A.D.M., Balasore passed the order to sell the rice. Thereafter, the rice was sold for a sum of Rs.19,359.50 ps. The sale proceeds were deposited in the treasury. Charge sheet was submitted against him. He was discharged on the ground that he had the valid licence for transportation of rice. The sale proceeds were refunded to him. Due to illegal seizure of rice and truck, he instituted the suit claiming compensation of Rs.96,000/- for mental agony and financial loss.

(3.) Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a licencee and dealer under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order. Due to non-production of valid documents, the seizure was made. The proceeding under Sec.6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act ("E.C Act") was started for disposal of rice. The A.D.M passed the order for sale of rice and deposited sale proceeds in the treasury. It was further pleaded that show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff. But then, he did not reply. After discharge, the money was refunded to him. The public officers were protected under Sec.15 of the E.C Act. The plaintiff not being the owner of the rice, he was not entitled to the compensation.