RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 27 for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved on account of the order in Case No. 83/2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar, as contained in Annexure-1, confiscating the pulses which were seized for having no licence as required under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Unification Order, 1984").

(2.) Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding that the pulses in question could not have been seized at the material time even though the licence was required to be obtained, however, no licence fee was prescribed to enable the petitioner to obtain the licence and as such, the very seizure as also the confiscation of the pulses is bad in law. In support of the above, learned counsel has produced a copy of the order dated 19th of February, 1992 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 412 of 1991 for the proposition that in absence of licence fee having been prescribed under the provisions of the Unification Order, 1984, the pulses cannot be brought within the purview of the Unification Order, 1984 and as such, consequently neither it could have been seized nor confiscated in the absence of licence. The petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 20 of the writ application that no licence fee was prescribed for dealing with the pulses at the material time.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. However, the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner is not denied. It has merely been stated that the order has been passed after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner.