AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Nath has filed this writ petition under Article 227, wherein he has called in question the order of confiscation and sale made by the Collector of Una under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in respect of 27 bags of maize and 19 bags of wheat said to be stored at the shop known as "M/s. Hem Raj Rameshwar Datt". The facts giving rise to the petition are, that the petitioner was the owner of the food stuff and the same was stored at the shop not for sale but because he needed some place to stock it. The police moved an application under Section 6-A for the confiscation of the said bags of maize and wheat. Accordingly the Collector ordered for confiscation but in addition thereto also ordered for disposal of the grain in so far as, that he directed the maize to be sold through the Food Corporation of India and the wheat to be sold by auction and the amount was to remain deposited in the Government Treasury. According to petitioner, the order regarding sale was not contemplated under Section 6-A and hence the Collector acted without jurisdiction. It was further pleaded that no opportunity to show cause was afforded to the petitioner against the order of sale, although the said opportunity was given against order for confiscation. It was also pleaded that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely Section 516-A, were applicable and unless an enquiry or trial was pending before the Magistrate and the article confiscated was subject to speedy or natural decay, the same could not be sold by the Court. Since the conditions laid down in Section 516-A were not satisfied, the order itself was illegal and could not be passed. According to petitioner, the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the case under Section 6-A. He did not record any reasons in his order why the foodgrains were liable to sale in the manner ordered by him. Articles 19, 31 and 31-A were thus impinged and interference should be made by the Court.

(2.) AS against these allegations, the affidavit submitted by the Collector indicated that he acted well within his jurisdiction. The petitioner was closely related to both Hem Raj and Rameshwar Datt and as such the shop really belonged to him. He brought the foodgrains for sale and there was a presumption to that effect in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1968 and the Himachal Pradesh Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1973. A notice to show cause under Section 6-B was given to the petitioner and in fact he did show cause against the order of confiscation. The decision regarding sale was an essential consequence that followed the order of confiscation. As such the order of sale is very much contemplated under Section 6-A of the Act. While showing cause, the petitioner never stated that the Collector had no jurisdiction or that the sale could not be directed. Rather his plea was that the bags of foodgrains were not meant for sale but were meant for storage at the shop of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner was carrying on the business of a dealer without a licence as laid down in clause 3 of the Order of 1973. Similarly he had stored foodgrains of more than 25 quintals in weight and there was a presumption that he stored them for the purpose of sale. That was also in accordance with the provisions of the Order of 1968.

(3.) WITH these allegations it was pleaded that the petition was misconceived and must be dismissed.