DILIP KUMAR KOTECHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Court against the order, dated 18.9.1992 by reason of which Respondent No. 2 has confiscated his truck bearing registration No. BHM 6831 along with coal loaded on it and also directed the District Transport Authority to cancel the registration of the said truck. When this matter was heard on 23.6.1993, Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner as required under section 68 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). On such submission being made, Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Government Pleader No. II was granted two weeks time for producing the records of the case in order to show as to whether that notice under section 6B of that Act was served upon the petitioner or not.

(2.) Today (8.7.1993) learned Counsel for the respondents has produced before us the original record of Confiscation Case No. 10 of 1989 and has fairly submitted that from the records it does not appear that any notice was served on the petitioner as required under section 68 of the Act before passing of the final order. Mr. Roy has submitted that on this score alone, the impugned order should be quashed in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ramanand Kejriwal v. State of Bihar and others. We find force in the contention of Mr. Roy. Secondly, it was submitted that the truck in question having not been seized inasmuch as no seizure report was received by the authorities concerned and as such the truck could not have been confiscated by the Respondent No. 2. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that from the seizure list it appears that the truck bearing registration No. BHM 6831 was not seized and no case under Section 7 of the Act was initiated. Though the counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents but the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition have not been controverter.

(3.) Advancing his argument, Mr. Roy has submitted that the valid seizure was a sine qua non for giving jurisdiction to Respondent No. 2 for starting the proceeding of confiscation. In support of his argument, he has relied on a decision in the case of Surendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others. In our opinion, both the contentions of Mr. Roy are well founded and has to be accepted. Mr. Banerjee also does not controverted the fact that the truck was never seized and also is not in a position to controverted the settled principles of law.