Chattisgarh High Court
) Atul Bagga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 December, 2008
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition C No. 6314 of 2008
1) Atul Bagga
2) Rashmi Bagga
...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh
2. Superintendent of Police
3. Station House Officer
4. Station House Officer
5. C.G. State Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited
6. District Manager
...Respondents
! Mr. Prateek Sharma with Ms. Sunita Jain
counsel for the petitioners
^ Mr. Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the
respondents No. 1 to 4/State
Mr. N.K. Vyas, counsel for the respondents No.5
and 6/Civil Supplies Corporation
Honble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J
Dated: 02/12/2008
: Judgement
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India)
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on this 2nd day of December, 2008)
With consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the matter is heard finally.
2) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 7-8-
2008 (Annexure R/1) passed by the District Manager,
Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Mahasamund, whereby the trucks bearing registration No. CG
04 E 3655, CG 04 CV 3955, CG 04 BD 6155, CG04 DB 6455, CG
04 HA 8955 and CG 04 J 8455 (hereinafter referred to as
"petition schedule trucks") have been detained illegally
and the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to
release the petition schedule trucks detained by the
respondents and compensation as well as damage to the
tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3) The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the
petitioners are that the petitioners are engaged in
transportation business in the name and style of Bagga
Transport at Bagbahra. The petitioner No.1 is the owner of
trucks bearing registration No. CG 04 E 3655, CG 04 CV
3955, CG 04 BD 6155, CG04 DB 6455 and CG 04 J 8455. The
petitioner No.2 is the owner of truck bearing registration
No. CG 04 HA 8955. The petition schedule trucks were
detained by the respondent authorities without registration
of any criminal case and without there being any
offence regarding detention of the petition schedule trucks
.
4) Shri Prateek Sharma with Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the detention of the petition schedule trucks is illegal, without any authority of law, and smack of high-handedness and arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities. Thus, the petition schedule trucks may be directed to be released with exemplary cost payable to the petitioners.
5) Shri Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4/State submits that the petition schedule trucks have been detained by the police authorities on the basis of the letter dated 7-8-2008 (Annexure R/1) of the respondent No.6. It is admitted that there was first information report lodged by the respondent No.5 in respect of other 42 trucks which were seized on account of non-supply of food grains under public distribution system to the places of their destination. With regard to the petition schedule trucks, it was stated in the letter that the petition schedule trucks may be detained for recovery of loss to the respondents No. 5 and 6/Civil Supplies Corporation.
6) Shri N.K. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5 and 6/Civil Supplies Corporation submits that the respondents No. 5 and 6 have exercised their power under Clause 13.7 of the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, "NIT") dated 15-3-2007, wherein it is provided that the Corporation may recover loss from movable and immovable properties of the transporter. Though, the petition schedule trucks are not engaged in the transportation of food grains, but the same were detained to recover loss which runs into several lacs of rupees. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been noticed with regard to the detention of the petition schedule trucks.
7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. In order to appreciate the power of the respondents No. 5 and 6/Civil Supplies Corporation, it is necessary to quote Clause 13.7 of the NIT which reads as under:
^^13-7 ifjogudrkZ dks lkSais x;s fu/kkZfjr ek=k vuqlkj ,oa leku xq.koRrk dk xarO; LFkku ij le; ij igqapkuk vko';d gSA Lda/k dh ek=k ,oa xq.koRrk esa fdlh Hkh rjg dh ;fn gsjkQsjh ;k xM+cM+h dh tkrh gS rks ifjogudrkZ ds fo:) naMkRed dk;Zokgh djrs gq, lacaf/kr okgu dks jktlkr djk fn;k tkosxk ,oa ifjogudrkZ dh py&vpy laifRRk ls HkjikbZ ds fy, fuxe Lora= jgsxkA----------------**
8) On perusal of Clause 13.7 of the NIT, it is evident that in the event the food grains do not reach to the destination or there is some mis-handling or irregularity, a criminal case can be registered against the transporter and the trucks involved therein may be seized. The second part of the said clause which provides for attaching movable and immovable property to recover loss cannot be done in the manner as it has been done in the present case.
9) It is well settled principle of law that in case of recovery of loss, there is a proper procedure; firstly after hearing the concerned parties, the quantum of loss/damage be assessed/determined and thereafter the process of recovery would start, in accordance with law.
The manner and method adopted by the respondents No. 5 and 6 is illegal. There was no assessment of loss or damage, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Corporation has straight-away proceeded to recover the loss by detaining the petition schedule trucks and as such there is no difficulty in holding that the detention of the petition schedule trucks which were not involved in the transportation of the food grains is illegal. The respondents No. 5 and 6 themselves have decided the loss without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and passed the result thereon by recommending the police authorities to detain the petition schedule trucks. Even the police authorities have also hastened to take action in detaining the petition schedule trucks without verifying the authority of the Corporation while recommending the police authorities for detaining the petition schedule trucks.
10) It is well settled principle of law that no person can be condemned without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. The principle of natural justice is based on two pillars: (i) nobody shall be condemned without hearing; and (ii) nobody shall be a judge in his own cause (See: State of UP Vs. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava and others1).
11) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order dated 7-8-2008 (Annexure R/1) is quashed. The petition schedule trucks bearing registration No. CG 04 E 3655, CG 04 CV 3955, CG 04 BD 6155, CG04 DB 6455, CG 04 HA 8955 and CG 04 J 8455 be released forthwith. If the petitioners have suffered any loss on account of illegal detention of the petition schedule trucks , the petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps for compensation and damages under the provisions of law.
12) The observations made hereinabove shall not come in the way of consideration of other matters pending against the petitioners, if any.
13) Accordingly the petition is allowed with cost quantified to be Rs.15,000/- payable by the respondents No. 5 and 6.
JUDGE