BINOD KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 31-1-85, Block Development Officer, Samastipur, respondent No. 3, along with District Supply Officer and a police party made a surprise check of the shop of petitioner Binod Kumar Rai, a licenced retail dealer in fertiliser dealing under the name and style of M/s. Vishwakarma Khad Bhandar at Samastipur. Finding shortage of fertiliser he lodged FIR giving rise to Town P.S. Case No. 31/85 under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter, police seized his cash memo, sale register and fertiliser and prepared seizure list (Annexure 1). The Collector, respondent No. 2, initiated a proceeding under S. 6A of the Act, confiscation case No. 241/85, and issued show cause notice dated 26-3-85 (Annexure 2). He showed the cause denying the allegation. After investigation, police submitted final report No. 13/85, dated 11-4-85 (Annexure 4) in the Court of Special Judge incharge stating that the case reported was a mistake of fact. After perusing the final report and hearing the parties, the Special Judge finally accepted the final report and discharged the petitioner by an order dated 17-5-85 passed in G.R. Case No. 136/85 (Annexure-5). The seized articles were released to him on 15-5-85 by the police.

(2.) Thereafter the petitioner informed the Collector that the trial court has already discharged him and the seized articles have been released. But even then the Collector proceeded with the confiscating proceeding. After hearing the parties on 28-5-85, he passed an order of confiscation (Annexure 7). Now he is about to execute the order using coercive means. In such circumstances, the petitioner moved this Court on 17-6-85 under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of Collector's Order dated 28-5-85 (Annexure 7).

(3.) Sri Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that seizure by the Block Development Officer was illegal and without jurisdiction as he was never appointed an Inspector of Fertilizer for the purposes of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 by the State Government by notification in the official gazette under clause 19 of the Order and hence he could not have exercise the powers of an Inspector of Fertilizer under cl. 20 of the said Order. In this connection he has referred to the case of Ram Chandra Pansari v. State of Bihar, 1988 BLJR 529.