KAILASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner prays for direction to the Respondents for payment of the price of the goods seized as per the seizure list, contained in Annexure -1.

(2.) IT is submitted that on 15.12.1977 on inspection different kind of commodities were seized, the details of which are mentioned in Annexure -1, and a criminal case was also instituted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. 1955. The said case resulted in acquittal of the proprietor of the firm and 15. its employees vide judgment and order contained in Annexure -4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the Collector, Patna under Section 6A (5) of the E.C. Act for return of the goods or if sold for refund of the amount. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 7.6.1989, contained in Annexure -5, on the ground that the liability of the State to pay can be established only if it is found that some Officers or agency of the State is guilty for delay in 20. disposal of the seized goods resulting in its decay. According to the Collector the order for disposal was passed by him but the same was stayed by the learned District Judge. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge and the petitioner came to this Court where also he failed in getting redressal of his grievance in the writ petition filed by him. It appears that after disposal of the criminal -case on 23.3.1984 the petitioner woke up and filed application which 25. resulted in decay of the seized goods. Thus, the. District Judge has dismissed the aforementioned application filed by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that nothing has been brought on record to show that the authorities were responsible for delay in disposal of the seized goods. In fact, after disposal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in this Court, the Collector gave order 35. for disposal of the seized goods but as they were found unfit for human consumption on the basis of technical expert chemical report the same could not be sold and the price for the same could not be collected. As such, according to the learned counsel for the State in view of the stay order passed by the District Judge, the authorities cannot be held responsible for non -disposal of the seized goods. 40. 5 This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the State. In fact, the Collector had already passed order for disposal of the goods earlier but the petitioner filed appeal before the District Judge in which District Judge stayed the order of the Collector for disposal of the seized goods. Thereafter, the petitioner further delayed the matter by agitating his grievance before this Court in the writ petition by which time the seized goods were found unfit for human consumption on the basis of technical expert chemical report and as such, the same could not be