UMASHANKER RAJGARIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ applications, arising out of common order, have been heard together and disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Collector, Dhanbad in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, whereby and whereunder the Collector confiscated 48 quintals of sugar belonging to the petitioners of CWJC 4129/ 2000 and a public carrier vehicle belonging to the petitioner of CWJC 4130/2000 for violation of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (in short the Unification Order).

(3.) THE allegation is that on demand the driver of the truck failed to produce any document/paper in relation to the stock of sugar loaded in the truck. It is stated that the writ petitioners subsequently appeared before the police and submitted application and cash -memos issued by M/s. Narayani Traders, Katras in their favour and prayed for release of the sugar. On investigation it was found that the sugar belonged to three claimants who are dealers under public distribution system. It was further found from the cash -memos produced by the petitioners that it was prepared on 25.3.2000 and subsequently the date of delivery was mentioned as 26.3.2000. On the basis of the report confiscation proceeding was initiated and show -cause notices were issued to the petitioners on the charges that there were interpolation in the date of cash -memos inasmuch as 25.3.2000 was made 26.3.2000 which raises a presumption of carrying sugar for sale in black market. The petitioners appeared and filed their show -cause and denied the allegations. The petitioners case was that though sugar was purchased on 25.3.2000 but the stock could not be lifted on account of non -availability of vehicles on that date. The same was lifted on 26.3.2000 on a hired vehicle and accordingly the dealer put the date of delivery on cash -memo as 26.3.2000. The Collector, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that serious irregularities were committed by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of Unification Order and interpolation was made in the cash -memo in order to sell the article in black market. Accordingly, the Collector passed the impugned order for confiscation of the article.