ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.11.1997 passed in confiscation case No. 42/97 whereby respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in exercise of power under Essential Commodities Act, confiscated the seized articles and further for quashing the appellate order dated 5.1.1999 passed by the Secretary, Food Supply and Commerce Department dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The aforesaid impugned orders have been filed and contained in Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ application.

(2.) Petitioner is a dealer in food-grains, Vanaspati oil, sugar, etc. having wholesale licence No. 10/HZB/96. It appears that on 3.10.1997 a raid was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner while some goods were being unloaded and certain goods were seized by the Inspecting Authority of Supply Department and thereafter, confiscation case No. 42/97 was initiated by respondent No. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner could not show any document in respect of the goods found in the premises and those goods had been stored for the purpose of evasion of sales tax, market-fee, etc. The goods were subsequently seized and seizure list was prepared and report was sent to the Collector for initiation of confiscation proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (in short "E.C. Act"). Petitioner said to have filed show cause giving details that he had licence to deal in the foodgrain, edible oil and free sale of sugar and that the stock of Vanaspati and edible oil was within the permissible limit. Petitioner has further stated in the show cause that mere excess of the articles beyond the permissible limit, is not an offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and mere allegation of black-marketing and profiteering does not make out a case under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. However, respondent No. 2 after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 20.11.1997 and order for confiscation of the seized articles. Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 6(c) of the said Act before the Secretary, Food Supply and Commerce Department at Patna, for being confiscation appeal No. 38/97 which was dismissed on 5.1.1999.

(3.) Mr. T.R. Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that notice issued under Section 6(B) of the said Act was vague and there is nothing mentioned in the said notice as to on which ground the confiscation proceeding has been initiated. Learned counsel submitted that the notice simply alleged that the seized goods were stored for the purpose of black-marketing and profiteering which is violative of condition of Bihar Trade Articles (Licence and Unification) Order, 1984 or any order issued under Section or any order issued Under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. Learned counsel further submitted that no price has been fixed in respect of seized articles and therefore there is no question of black-marketing. Notice does not show that black-marketing and profiteering violates which clause of Unification Order. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of a bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Prasad and others V/s. State of Bihar,1998 2 PLJR 330 . Learned counsel further submitted that impugned order passed by the then Deputy Commissioner and appellate authority are based on extraneous consideration. In this connection learned counsel relied up to the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Md. Ayub Bismillah Rice & Oil Mills V/s. Collector of West Champaran and others,1977 PLJR 64, and in the case of Bishwanath Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and another, 1998 1 EastCriC 663.