M/S. Raj Traders Thr. Proprietor ... vs The Collector Nagpur And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 2277 Bom

                                                           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.

                                                            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.

                                                            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