Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Section 6B in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1981
emphasizing the need for giving an opportunity for giving remedial hearing even in cases where a prior notice or an opportunity of being beard was not considered practicable, in para 42 of the said judgment the position is even more lucidly stated:
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
7. It is true, in the instant case, the discretion is vested with the Collector as to whether the essential commodity seized is to be sold or not. If it is to be sold, he is to be satisfied that the commodity was subject to speedy and natural decay or it was otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do. The opinion has to be arrived at in the true spirit of the provisions contained in the statute and on an objective assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances, not arbitrarily or capriciously. The commodity seized in this case it raw rice and boiled rice. The question is whether it has to be sold pending final orders in the confiscation proceedings; and it so, whether it has to be
done without notice and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the person affected. With respect to this the opinion formed by the Collector should be available on the concerned file. As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner. (AIR 1978 SC 851) the public authorities making public orders should clearly state the reasons behind the decision arrived at by them. In this case it would have made all the difference had the file disclosed the reasons for the sale pending the passing of the final order in the confiscation proceedings, and also of the urgency in doing so dispensing with notice and an opportunity of being heard given to the person affected. The concerned file, as we understand, disclosed total absence of the application of mind or a fair decision taken on a correct appraisal of the fact and circumstances of the case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision of the 1st respondent to direct distribution of the seized commodity through A. R. Ds. without notice or an opportunity of being heard given to the person affected is not sustainable.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
1