VISHWAMBHAR LAL AND CO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had purchased 300 drums of Butter -oil from the Bombay Port Trusts at total price of Rs. 8,82,481.09. Out of aforesaid 300 drums 50 drums containing 10,000 Kg of butter oil were seized by District Supply Officer, Jodhpur on 30.8.1982 from the possession of transporter, on the ground that it was imported edible oil, which has been found to be imported in contravention of provisions of Essential Commodities Act. On 6th September, 1983 the Collector, Jodhpur ordered confiscation of 50 drums of butter -oil under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal before Appellate Committes under Sanction of 6C of the Essential Commodities Act. The Appellate Committee decided the appeal on 19.7.1984. The order of confiscation passed by Collector was set aside by the Appellate Committee and it was directed that the sale price of the butter oil should be refunded to the petitioner. In spite of order dated 19.7.84 the respondents have failed to refund the price of 50 drums of butter oil which was sold by them during the pendency of those proceedings. The petitioner even served a notice for demand of justice to comply with the direction of the Appellate Committee for making the refund of the sale price of the drums of butter -oil in terms of the direction issued by the Appellate Committee. Having failed to secure comliance with order of Appellate Committee through demand of justice, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENTS in their returns to show cause notice has reiterated that the orders of confiscation passed by the Collector were right orders and the petitioner is not entitled to bet the refund. The order passed by Collector under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was set aside way back in 1984 by Appellate Committee constituted under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act itself. In view of the decision of higher tribunal which has not been challenged anywhere, it is not open for the respondents fall back on an order which has been set aside by a competent forum.

(3.) TO say the least, the whole reply smacks of scant respect for the orders passed by Appellate Authorities as well as rule of 1. Order of confiscation of goods in question by Collector was ultimately found to be illegal. As a result of appellate order it was statutory obligation of the collector to have refunded the sale price of goods in question to the petitioner. It did not depend on any so called dispute between the supply department and Sahakari Bazar, Jodhpur through whose agency the goods were disbursed. The refund of the price of goods did not depend on any recovery of the sum from the Sahakari Bazar or from the ultimate buyers from the authorities confiscating the goods. The obligation to refund existed independent of any such contingencies and the Collector ought to have arranged for refund within reasonable time.