PRITAMLAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are sixteen petitioners in this case. Petitioner no. 1 is an employee of petitioner no. 2, whereas petitioner nos. 2 to 16 are cultivator of village Neora, a village age 50 miles away from the town of Darbhanga. It is said that the paddy that was produced by petitioner nos. 2 to 16 was being carried from village Neora to Darbhanga on a truck bearing registration No. BRJ 1645 in 141 bags on 27-4-81. The petitioners say that when the truck reached near Mahadeo Math a Police Inspector intercepted the truck and seized the articles on the ground that there was no licence or permit authorizing the petitioners to carry the paddy to Darbhanga. It is further said that a criminal case was registered by the police and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In the meantime notice was issued to petitioner no. 1 under section 6-A of the Act stating that on 27-4-81 he was carrying 141 bags of paddy from Nepal to Darbhanga with a view to sell the same in black market. Petitioner no. 1 along with the other petitioners filed an application before the District Magistrate stating that they were cultivators and were carrying the paddy to Darbhanga for sale.

(2.) The learned District Magistrate by his order dated 18-8-81, on the basis of submissions made by the A.P.P. and on the basis of the report directed confiscation of the seized paddy and ordered the same to be disposed of by the Anchal Adhikari through fair price shop and the sale proceeds thereof to be deposited in the treasury. The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the Order of confiscation on the ground that there is no law prohibiting movement of paddy from one place to another and also on the ground that there is no taw regulating the price of paddy at the price offered to them. According to the petitioners, therefore, there was no contravention of any law.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar wherein, infer alia, it has been stated that the State Government's Notification No. 12084 SC, dated 30-6-66 and GSR 51, dated 20-3-1968 restrict the movement of rice and paddy within a 20-mile belt along with the border area. According to Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel who appeared for the State, the petitioners were carrying the paddy in violation of the aforesaid two notifications.