DHARMADEO YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 8-8-1983 passed by the respondent-Collector, contained in Annexure-'I', by which he has confiscated 106.355 Quintals of foodgrains and the order dated 17-2-1984 passed in an appeal confirming the same, contained in Annexure-'2'.

(2.) The short facts for disposal of this application are that on 27-2-1979 the respondent-District Supply Officer along with other inspected the business premises of the firm M/s. Laxman Jee Sudama Jee, which was a retail-dealer having been granted a licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order') found certain irregularities and seized 94-89 Quintals of rice 11.465 Quintals of pulses besides other grains which are not covered by the Licensing Order. Thereafter, a criminal prosecution has launched against Sudama Jee, Proprietor of the aforesaid licensee firm and the seizure of the foodgrains was reported to the respondent Collector, who on receipt of the report initiated a confiscation proceeding under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the aforesaid licensed dealer had committed various irregularities.

(3.) Upon service of notice of the confiscation proceeding, Sudama Jee, Proprietor of the aforesaid firm M/s. Laxman Jee Sudama Jee, filed show cause stating therein, inter alia, that out of the stocks seized, namely, 106.355 Quintals, 8 bags of rice and one bag of pulse belonged to the petitioner-Mahadeo Sah and 9 bags of rice belonged to petitioner Dharmadeo Sah. It was stated on behalf of the licensee-firm that the aforesaid stock of 18 bags, which was about 18 quintals, had been purchased by both the petitioners, who are petty dealers, from agriculturists and they had kept it in the premises of the Licensee-firm, as the market had not yet started in Aranda Bazar. According to it, if the aforesaid 18 bags of foodgrains are deducted out of 106.355 Quintals of the seized articles, in that event, the licensee-firm was storing the foodgrains within 100 quintals, which is within the permissible limits as such, there was no violation.