DIPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment dated 26-12-2006, contained in Annexure-4 passed by the District Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Confiscation Case No. 3/05-06, whereby he has passed order confiscating the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No. JH-06B-1729 under the provision of Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He has further prayed for quashing the order dated 31-5-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum. Chaibasa, in exercise of power under Sec. 6C of the Act, in Cr.Misc. Confiscation Appeal No. 1/07 upholding the order of the learned District Magistrate and prayed for an appropriate order for release of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH-06B-1729 in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. His vehicle was hired for transporting wheat by one Sidik Munda, who was a Public Distribution System (PDS for short) dealer. The vehicle was intercepted and seized by some villagers and subsequently confiscation case was initiated being Confiscation Case No. 3/05-06. Notice was issued to the said Sidik Munda as well as the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and filed his reply stating, inter alia, that he is the transporter; his vehicle was hired by Sidik Munda and he has got no concern with the article loaded in the vehicle. Learned District Magistrate, West Singhbhum by his impugned order dated 26-12-2006 held that the petitioner failed to ex- plain about destination where the wheat was to be unloaded. On that basis, learned District Magistrate inferred that the petitioner had full knowledge and active connivance with said Sidik Munda. who loaded wheat of PDS to sell in the black market. On the said finding, he held that the petitioner's vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Sec. 6A(1)(c) of the Act as wheat meant for PDS shop was being carried for black marketing by his vehicle.

(3.) Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that jurisdiction for confiscation can be exercised only within the ambit of the provisions of Sec. 6A of the Act and only in the case of violation of any order made under Sec. 3 of the Act. In the instant case, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he was not licensee under the Act. From perusal of the notice issued to the petitioner as also from the judgment, it would be evident that no order made under Sec. 3 of the said Act has been violated by the petitioner. He was the owner of the vehicle and his vehicle was hired for the purpose of transporting article by the said Sidik Munda. The petitioner having not violated any provision of law, his vehicle cannot be confiscated under Sec. 6A of the Act and the order is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction.