Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bunty Singh @ Jitendrasingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2017
1 W. P. No. 2210/ 2017
(Bunty Singh @ Jitendrasingh Vs. State of M.P. & Another)
07.04.2017
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/ State.
With consent heard finally.
Petitioner has preferred this petition challenging
the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Collector,
District- Gwalior, wherein the application of the
petitioner for getting the vehicle on Supurdagi has been
rejected.
Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a registered
owner of vehicle truck having registration No.MP09 KA 1057 and the said vehicle was caught by the police authority of Police at Krishna Dhaba Susera Bypass Road, carrying fertilizers whereupon Fertilizer Inspector was called and further action has been taken in pursuance to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') as well as the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985 (in short 'the Control Order').
The main contention raised by the petitioner is that Section 6-A of the Act deals for confiscation of essential commodity and also deals in respect of exigency regarding the seized vehicle, the same is provided in second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 6-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. Sate of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of G. 2 W. P. No. 2210/ 2017 (Bunty Singh @ Jitendrasingh Vs. State of M.P. & Another) Subbarama Naidu Vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor Dist.
and others, AIR 1986 AP 82 and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajmohan Kapoor Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2010 (1) EFR 197, Parsadilal Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (3) MPLJ 529 and Mewalal Sharma Vs. State of M.P. through Police Station Mihona District Bhind, 2011 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 371. Petitioner prayed for release of the vehicle on Supurdagi.
On the other hand, respondents have filed reply and contested the claim of petitioner. According to counsel for the respondents, the case was rightly registered against the petitioner because of violation of clause 7, 8 and 25(3) of the Control Order which makes petitioner liable for confiscation under Section 6-A of the Act for violation of Section 3 of the Act. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts of the case are not disputed. Counsel for the parties are in unison in respect of facts. Section 6-A of the Act is reproduced as under:
"6-A. 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 Pesidency 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; 3 W. P. No. 2210/ 2017
(Bunty Singh @ Jitendrasingh Vs. State of M.P. & Another)
(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 foodgrains or edible oilseeds, in pursuance of an 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 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. (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub- section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may-
(i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction:
(3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall--
(a) where no order or confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector,
(b) where an order passed on appeal under sub- section (1) of section 6-C so requires, or
(c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted, be paid to the owner or the person from whom it is seized."
Perusal of Section 6-A of the Act reveals that it is 4 W. P. No. 2210/ 2017 (Bunty Singh @ Jitendrasingh Vs. State of M.P. & Another) not in dispute that the competent authority is invested with the power to seize any confiscated essential commodity under Section 6-A of the Act, but at the same time second proviso gives power and authority to the competent authority to pass the order in respect of release of vehicle after collecting the security as provided in the Act itself. Here, from the impugned order it appears that the District Collector has not exercised the authority given to him under the provisions of the Act. The District Collector may consider this aspect of release of vehicle as per the procedure laid down in the Act as well as guidelines provided by the different legal pronouncements. This view adopted by this Court is supported by the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajmohan Kapoor (supra) and Mewalal Sharma (supra). Relevant extract of Mewalal Sharma's case reads as under:
"While considering the facts that applicant is registered owner of the seized vehicle no prolific purpose would be served by letting the vehicle idle in the police station for such long period. In view f the aforesaid, the impugned order is having apparent perverse and as such it requires interference in this revision hence impugned order dated 6th August, 2010 is set aside with direction to the trial Court that tractor trolley bearing No. MP 06 A 7066 be released on interim Supurdginama of applicant on his furnishing surety bond and person bond of Rs. One lakh with the direction that during investigation whenever required applicant will produce that vehicle and shall not alienate, dispose of or transfer that vehicle and also produce it before the collector if confiscation proceedings are initiated concerning that vehicle and the aforesaid release of the vehicle will be subject to outcome of confiscation proceedings if 5 W. P. No. 2210/ 2017 (Bunty Singh @ Jitendrasingh Vs. State of M.P. & Another) initiated."
Thus, on the basis of above discussion the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set-aside in respect of the petitioner with further direction to the respondent to consider the case of petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act as well as different pronouncements made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as this Court in the similar cases/fact situation. Petitioner is at liberty to move an application afresh and in case such application for release of vehicle is filed, the competent authority/appellate authority will dispose of the application immediately, preferably within a period of one month from the dates of presentation of application and if find all facts correct then, release the vehicle in question to the petitioner on Supurdaginama after collecting the Supurdagi as provided in the Act and rules pending enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act which could not be exceeding the market price of the goods/commodity on the date of seizure of vehicle.
The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Petitioner to appear before the Collector along with certified copy of this order on 18.04.2017.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge @PK