AGARWAL M P Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the respondents action of search and seizure, its eventual confiscation and the order of forfeiture in respect of the Articles as enlisted in the Seizure list, Annexure -I, from serial No. 4 to 10. The petitioner approached the Sessions Judge, Jorhat, who by his order dated 13.2.90, directed the respondents that the seized goods be given at the disposal of the accused/petitioner on his filing a security for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only. After the aforesaid order passed by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner approached this Court with the present petition and by the order dated 7.6.90, this Court directed that on furnishing a security bond as ordered by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner was at liberty to dispose of the seized articles. The learned counsel states that in view of this order, the seized articles have been disposed of by the petitioner.

(2.) The most striking feature of this petition is that ever since the aforesaid order was passed on 7.6.90, during all these six years this petition was never listed and today it has come up for hearing. Despite the interim order passed, no return or counter has been filed by the State/ respondents although the order was passed after hearing the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate. Six years have rolled by and the interim order is still effective and operating. Such orders when passed, it is expected of the Registry to see that the matter is listed as early as possible. What is surprising is that, even the respondents never felt that in view of the interim order the hearing should be expedited and have never moved the Court. The parties may be remiss, but it is the duty of the Registry to see that petitions with interim orders of stay are not allowed to be passed over for years and years together as in the instant case, which is not the solitary instance - there are several such other cases. It adversely reflects on the functioning of the Registry.

(3.) Coming to the case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the power of search and seizure is not an absolute power. Since it invades the rights of a citizen to carry on his business, it must be exercised strictly within the permissible limits of law and must satisfy the requirements whenever questioned. Referring to clause 30 of the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 and placing; reliance on two judgments of this Court reported in 1992 (2) GLJ 173 and 1992 (2) GLJ 232 the learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to support the essential requirements of 'reason to believe' which cannot exist in vacuum of facts. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents pointed out that there is not a whisper in the petition about any such ground. Reading clause 30 as a whole, it would be seen that the power of entry, search and seizure is conferred on the officials enumerated in sub- clause (1) and it is with the avowed object, as can be gathered from the following words : "with a view to securing the compliance of this Order to satisfy himself that this Order has been complied with ..." Thus it is the compliance of the Order and not a fanciful wish of any official that the premises of a businessman can be invaded or raided. The primary object is the compliance of the Order.