MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to order dated 21.7.1998, Annexure P-8 passed by the Collector, Jind vide which 21,300 bags of rice seized pursuant to an F.I.R. registered against the petitioners and some officers of the Food Corporation have been ordered to be auctioned. The operative part of the order passed by the Collector, reads as under:-

(2.) Brief facts culminating in filing of present petition need a necessary mention. It is the case of the petitioners that they are licensed millers/owners of rice mills in the vicinity of Tehsil Narwana, District Jind and are engaged in rice milling for last about 10 to 15 years. In accordance with the State Government instructions/notification issued from time to time, rice millers are enjoined to supply levy rice to the State government at a fixed price. Food and Supplies Department issued 71 contract numbers to the petitioners to supply 71 consignments of levy rice of approximately 21,300 bags. It is further the case of the petitioners that from 25.4.1998 to 30.4.1998 petitioners supplied 71 consignment of rice as per contract and left the same at FCI godown, Narwana. A complaint came to be lodged against the petitioners on 4.5.1998 on the basis of which police sealed the consignments of rice and had the same analysed by Public Analyst on its own. Procedure for testing and sampling of goods as provided for in the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Second Amendment Order, 1996 was not properly followed, nor petitioners were associated when the samples were taken by the police. On 9.5.1998 a seizure report was submitted by the DSP to Collector Narwana. The Collector returned the said report to SP Jind asking for a detailed report of seizure so that further action could be initiated. On 14.5.1998 report was furnished to the Collector giving details of the FIR lodged and of invoking Sections 7, 10, 55 of the Essential Commodities Act. After receipt of the report by Collector, as referred to above, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 17.6.1998. Notice was issued under Sections 6-A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The report of Public Analyst was also enclosed with the notice. The petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice on 17.7.1998. They pleaded that the provisions of clauses 6 and 7(4) of Levy Order were not followed and that seizure of consignment was illegal. It was also pleaded that provisions of Essential Commodities Act were not applicable. It is further the case of the petitioners that meanwhile the Investigating Officer vide letter dated 25.6.1998 recommended rice to be returned to the rice millers on supurdari as in normal course rice which had been declared as "beyond rejection limit" is returned to the suppliers. Vide impugned order dated 21.7.1998 the Collector ordered auction of consignment. As mentioned above it is this order of the Collector which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondents have entered defence and contested the cause of the petitioners by filing written statement,