JAGDISH TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the six revision applications referred to above a common question of law has been posed at the Bar. As such, with the consent of the parties all the applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) It was on the order of the Collector, Purnea that officials of the Supply Department raided the business premises of these petitioners and on detecting some irregularities instituted several cases against each one of them. In course of the raid, articles belonging to them were also seized and each one of them was noticed to show cause why the articles seized be not confiscated. The notices were issued by the Collector under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The copies of the notices have been attached with each one of the applications as Annexure '2'. It is stated that each one of the petitioners filed show- cause but the learned Collector after hearing the parties was pleased to confiscate the articles seized. Copies of the orders of the Collector, passed in each case have been filed along with the application marked Annexure '3'.

(3.) The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the learned Collector. Preferred appeals before the Sessions Judge at Purnea. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed all the six appeals by order, dated 1st May, 1980 (vide Annexure '4') which is under challenge before this Court. According t the learned Sessions Judge the appeals filed before him by these petitioners were not maintainable. The court took the view that a Sessions Judge is not a 'judicial authority' under section 6-C of the Act and therefore, a Sessions Judge is not competent to dispose of the appeals. Orders passed by the Sessions Judge is similar in all the appeals. But it will be profitable to quote one such order, which the Sessions Judge recorded in Cr. Appeal no. 66 of 1980. This appeal was against the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, Purnia in Misc. Case no 279/79-80. After hearing the lawyers of both the sides, I perused the three notifications issued by the Government of Bihar regarding the appointment of of judicial authority under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. The notification dated 21st February, 1967 shows that the Governor of Bihar was pleased to appoint all the District and Sessions Judge including the Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur and Ranchi to discharge the duty of Judicial authority under section 6-C of the Act, within their respective jurisdiction. The 2nd notification was published in the Official Gazette on 11th November, 1974 in which 'only Divisional Commissioners were appointed judicial authority under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act within their respective jurisdiction. The third notification is dated 25th of January, 1977 in which also the Governor of Bihar was pleased to appoint judicial Commissioners only to act as judicial authority. The second and the third notification does not say anything about the appointment of the Disrtict and Sessions Judge as judicial authority under section 6-C of the Act. The last two notifications make it clear that the Divisional Commissioners alone were appointed judicial authority by the Governor of Bihar under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act to dispose of the appeals against the order of confitction.