NAVIN KUMAR MAHAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Iqbal Singh Tiwana has invited our attention to the provisions of Sections 6-A, 6-B and 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) as amended up to date. The provisions read as below :-

(2.) Faced with the above situation Mr. Malik has vehemently argued that Section 6-A of the Act authorising the confiscation of not only the vehicle, but even the seized foodgrain is ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution as it does not provide as to who is to decide whether there has in fact been any contravention of any order issued under Section 3 of the Act or not, and does not even provide the machinery for coming to such a decision. He has placed reliance for this submission on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kantilal Babulal and Brothers v. H.C. Patel and others, 1968 AIR(SC) 445and on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M/s. Munilal Bhagwat Sharan and others v. The Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway and others, 1972 AIR(Cal) 405The Supreme Court case related to the vires of Section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act (5 of 1946). Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 12A of the Bombay Act prohibited the collection of any tax by the seller or purchaser in respect of any sale on which the tax is not levied under the Act. The relevant part of sub-section (4) of Section 12-A of the Bombay Act was in the following terms :-

(3.) The judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases does not help the petitioner as in the instant case Sections 6-A and 6-B as amended provided that machinery. Action of confiscation can only be taken if contravention of an order under Section 3 is found, and Section 6-B lays down the detailed machinery for deciding the crucial issue, the decision of which is a condition precedent for proceeding further under the penal provision of Section 6-A. Even an appeal is provided under Section 6-C against any order of confiscation that may be passed under Section 6-A. That appeal lies to a judicial authority appointed by the State Government and not to an administrative officer. The decision under Section 6-A has to be arrived at it an objective manner, and it is futile to argue that such a decision is left to the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate authority.