BIHAR TRADERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a proprietorship firm carrying on business in fertiliser holding certificate of registration under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter the Control Order). The principal place of business of the firm is at Bajpatti in the district of Sitamarhi from where alone sales of fertilisers are effected. In this writ application, the petitioner -firm seeks quashing of the seizure of fertiliser effected by the Block Agriculture Officer -respondent No. 5, criminal prosecution as also of the entire confiscation proceeding pending before the Collector - respondent no. 3.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie within a short compass. Respondent no. 5 filed a written report before the Officer -in -charge, Town P.S. Sitamarhi copy of which is An -nexure 2/A alleging that acting on information received, the informant along with Others including the Block Development officer raided Sita Ram Rice Mill on 7.9.1991 at 4 p.m. and found the godown locked. The lock was sealed. On information, the proprietor of the firm sent his representative and in his presence on 13.9.1991, the lock of the godown was opened and 7441 bags and 9 open bags of fertilisers were recovered and seized. At the time of seizure, a stock register of urea for the year 1991 -92 was also seized which was duly verified under the signature of the District Agriculture Officer dated 18.6.1991. Since the place of busi - ness of the petitioner -firm was Bajpatti, the storage of the fertiliser bags at Sita Ram Mills was treated to be unauthorised. On the basis of the written repot, the police registered a criminal case and started investigation and a confiscation proceeding in respect of the fertilisers seized, was also started by respondent no. 3.

(3.) THE contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner -firm is that the certificate of registration granted to the petitioner - firm under the Order did not prohibit the petitioner -firm from storing fertilisers at a place other than the place of business. Admittedly, the place of business under the certificate of registration of the firm was Bajpatti. Learned counsel referred to Clause (4) of the certificate of registration which requires the holders of the certificate to report to the registering authority from time to time any change in the premises of the sale depot and the godown attached to the sale depot. The petitioner -firm has, in its writ application, narrated the circumstance in which the fertilisers had been stored at the Rice Mills instead of Bajpatti. The petitioner claims that in June, 1981, he received information that a rack loaded with urea was to be despatched from Namrup in the State of Assam by the Hindustan Corporation Limited. The petitioner -firm was required to lift the stock which was due to arrive at Sitamarhi Railway Station in July, 1991. On account of the road bridge leading to Bajpatti being damaged, the petitioner was not in a position to obtain delivery of the fertilisers at Sitamarhi and then bring them to Bajpatti for storage or for sale. It was under these unavoidable circumstances that the firm took on rent a godown in Sita Ram Rice Mill in Rajopatti for the purpose of storing the fertilisers as and when received from Sitamarhi Railway Station. A separate stock register for the fertilisers to be stored at the said godown, was opened and the District Agriculture Officer had duly authenticated and certified the stock register of the petitioner - firm on 18.6.1991. The District Agriculture Officer who authenticated the stock register was the authority competent to issue certificate of registration as he happened to be the registering authority.