1 judg.wp 2623.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.2623 of 2016.
M/s Raj Traders
through its Proprietor Rajesh Harishankar Bhojwani,
Occ.-Business, Address : Grain Market, Kalamna,
Nagpur. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] The Collector, Nagpur.
2] The District Supply Officer, Nagpur. .... Respondents.
Shri F.T. Mirza, Adv for petitioner.
Shri S.B. Ahirkar, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Coram : S.B. Shukre, J.
th Dated : 04 May, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Heard.
2] Issue notice to respondent nos. 1 and 2.
3] Shri Ahirkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader,
waives service of notice for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
4] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:23 ::: 2 judg.wp 2623.16.odt
5] The grievance is that even though the Soya-bean seeds,
which are edible oil seeds do not fall in the category of restricted commodity as per the Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002, (Annexure-'B') [for short, 'the Order of 2002'], by the impugned order, respondent no.1 directed that the bank guarantee may be furnished by the petitioner for releasing the Soya-bean oil seeds to the custody of the petitioner on Supratnama.
6] In support, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the Order of 2002 and also the communication issued by the State Government dated 30-10-2015. On perusal of the Order of 2002 as well as the communication of the State Government dated 30-10-2015, it becomes clear that the Soya-
bean oil seeds do not fall within the category of the restricted commodity and by the Order of 2002, the Central Government has dispensed with the requirement of the licence for buying, stocking, selling, transporting, distributing, disposing, acquiring, using or consuming the same. When the commodity is not covered by the Order of 2002, there will be no question of seizing the same and if seized illegally, there would be no question of keeping the affected person bound over to some conditions.
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:23 ::: 3 judg.wp 2623.16.odt
7] In this view of the matter, the impugned part of the order
dated 30-04-2016 cannot be said to have been passed in accordance with law and it must go. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. That part of the impugned order which directed furnishing of bank security for releasing the seized goods to the petitioner and also requiring the petitioner to furnish Supratnama is quashed and set aside.
8] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
JUDGE Deshmukh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:23 :::