Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs R.B. Agro Milling Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Bharat ... on 12 July, 2017
Writ Appeal No.238 of 2017
Writ Appeal No.239 of 2017
12/07/2017
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri C. S. Ujjania, learned Deputy
Government Advocate for the appellants/State.
Shri N. K. Dave, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.2406/2017 and I.A. No.2408/2017, applications for condonation of delay. Both the writ appeals are barred by 4040 days.
2. For the reasons assigned in the applications, we are of the view that the cause shown is sufficient to condone the delay.
3. Accordingly, delay of 4040 days in filing the writ appeals are hereby condoned by allowing both the aforesaid I.As.
4. Also heard on I.A. No.3851/2017, an application for amendment.
5. On due consideration, I.A. No.3851/2017 is allowed.
6. Necessary corrections be carried out within three working days.
7. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
8. By these intra Court appeals, the appellants/State challenging the order dated 19.12.2016, by which the learned Writ Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellants/State that the stock shall be handed over to the respondent subject to furnishing surety in respect of the goods in question.
9. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn our attention to the notification dated 17.10.2015, by which control order known as M. P. Avashyak Vastu Vyapari (Stock Seema Thatha Majakhori Par Nirbandhan) Aadesh, 2015 has been issued. As per the control order, petitioner/trader/stockiest etc. (Masoor Pulses) was suppose to have a limited stock upto 500 quintals. On 18.10.2015 a surprise inspection of the respondent goddown/premises was made in presence of the representative of the respondent and during inspection they found 4,597 quintals of Masoor pulses, which is more than the limit prescribed under the 2015 Control Order. A Panchanama to this effect was prepared. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 28.10.2015 and after considering the reply dated 5.11.2015 of the respondent, confiscation order was passed on 19.11.2015. This was challenged by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that Statutory Appeal is provided against the order of confiscation under the provisions of Section 6C of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He further submitted that in compliance to order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court the goods in question has been handed over to the respondent but certain observation has been made by the learned Writ Court, which will come in the way of the State in deciding the other matters and, therefore, the order be modified accordingly.
11. To support the aforesaid he has drawn our attention at page No.169 wherein the learned Writ Court has held that "in all fairness some breathing time should be granted to the petitioner before confiscation of the goods (Masoor) available in the godown, however, same has not been done and confiscation proceedings have taken place."
12. The learned Writ Court was also of the opinion that the appellant should have heard the person, who is actual owner of the goods as alleged and thereafter should have passed a final order in the matter. It is also observed that the stock is perishable in nature and same shall be handed over to the respondent subject to furnishing surety in respect of goods in question.
13. From the record, it is not in dispute that a surprise inspection was made in presence of the representative of the respondent on 18.10.2015 and after inspection, a panchanama was prepared which was duly signed by the representative of the respondent/petitioner and at that time no stand was taken by the respondent/petitioner that number of agriculturists are actual owners of the goods. The order of confiscation was passed only after giving show cause notice to the respondent/petitioner and, therefore, we set aside the aforesaid observations and dispose of the writ appeals because the goods are released and is in possession of the respondent. The main proceedings before the District Magistrate is going on. We also clarify that the observations made by the learned Writ Court will not come on the way to the District Magistrate in deciding the main proceedings in accordance with law nor the same will be binding to the District Magistrate in deciding other similar matters in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, we allow the appeals in part to the extent as indicated hereinabove.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (Ved Prakash Sharma)
Judge Judge
pp