Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Maneeta Bahdoriya Power Of ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2018
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.7286/2018
(Smt. Maneeta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. and Others)
Gwalior, Dated: 28/03/2018
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/ State.
With consent, heard finally.
The instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12/03/2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, District-Gwalior whereby the Collector, District-Gwalior has rejected the application for interim custody of subjected vehicle.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.MP06-E-3829 (tanker). For releasing the vehicle, petitioner has executed a power of attorney in favour of the Shailendra Singh Gaud. As per the prosecution story on 08/10/2017, Assistant Supply Officer-R.S. Dhakre and Civil Supply Officer R.S. Bhadoriya reached the Police Station Badagaon Morar, District-Gwalior informing that on 07/10/2017 at 9 PM, he intercepted one tanker which was laying infront of Char Bhai ke Dhabe near temple on this assumption that kerosene is stored in the tanker and while raid, driver and cleaner of the tanker fled away from the spot and Panchnama was prepared and vehicle was seized. On the basis of story submitted by the Station House Officer, sampling of the petroleum article was made by the officers of the food department and the same was sent for analysis on 12/10/2017. Meanwhile, a case was registered 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.7286/2018 (Smt. Maneeta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. and Others) against the petitioner for confiscation. Petitioner appeared after receiving show cause notice and filed reply. Application for releasing the vehicle on temporary supply was also submitted. As per the provisions contained in Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "Act of 1955"), petitioner submits that the vehicle cannot be confiscated even if offence is made out to be proved. The said application has been rejected therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
According to him, the vehicle cannot be confiscated because II proviso appended with Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 contemplates that the Collector in lieu of its confiscation, can ask for fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodities sought to be carried by such vehicle and release the same. Therefore, Collector erred in passing the impugned order and rejecting the interim custody of the vehicle. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 AP 83, G. Subbarama Naidu vs The Joint Collector, Chittoor and Others, and prayed for release of the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the impugned order is only the order of rejection on interim application. Petitioner was found to be carrying petroleum products illegally. Therefore, confiscation proceedings have been started.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that confiscation proceedings are going on against the petitioner 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.7286/2018 (Smt. Maneeta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. and Others) and during pendency of the confiscation proceedings, application for interim custody has been moved by the petitioner. Section 6A and II proviso of the Act of 1955 are worth consideration in this regard:-
"6A- Confiscation of essential commodity:- (1) Where any [essential commodity is seized] in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, [a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to] the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such [essential commodity is seized] and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector [may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied] that there has been a contravention of the order [may order confiscation of-
(a) the essential commodity so seized;
(b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and
(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity;
Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no food-grains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of any order made under Section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section:-
[Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner
4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.7286/2018 (Smt. Maneeta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. and Others) of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.] The said proviso makes it clear that the Collector shall give an option to the petitioner to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the vehicle by paying fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodities sought to be carried out by such vehicle. Here from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the confiscation proceedings are going on and petitioner sought interim custody.
Considering the fact situation that confiscation proceedings are going on, arguments advanced by the petitioner on the basis of II proviso of Section 6A as referred above indicates that stage has not arrived at yet for proceeding. When confiscation proceedings would be completed and when decision would have to be taken by the Collector in respect of the confiscation then the option as provided in II proviso of Section 6A shall come into play and then and there, the Collector shall give an option to the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, application for interim custody was discretionary in nature and if an authority has taken an particular view for rejecting the application for interim custody then the same needs not to be interfered with, under the limited jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it is made clear that the Collector shall give an option to the petitioner as per II proviso once the confiscation proceedings come to 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.7286/2018 (Smt. Maneeta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. and Others) conclusion.
Resultantly, petition is dismissed but with aforesaid observations.
Confiscation proceedings be concluded as expeditiously as possible.
(Anand Pathak) Judge vc VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2018.04.06 17:58:39
-07'00'