Bombay High Court
Shri. Rushi S/O. Manbahadur Verma ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 29 January, 2018
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-cwp134.17.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.133 OF 2017
1. Shri Rushi s/o. Manbahadur Verma,
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Shri Laxmibai Deomanlal Kausal,
Aged about 76 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
3. Shri Ghodelal s/o. Deomanlal Kausal,
Aged about 54 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
4. Shri Kanhaiyyalal s/o. Deomanlal Kausal,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
5. Smt. Indubai Kanhaiyyalal Kausal,
Aged about 41 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
6. Shri Shubham s/o. Kanhaiyalal Kausal,
Aged about Minor,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
All Resident of Parsodi,
Tahsil Narkhed, District Nagpur. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Food and Civil Supplies Department,
Mumbai.
2. The Collector,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2018 01:39:55 :::
J-cwp134.17.odt 2/5
3. The Additional Collector,
Nagpur.
4. The District Supply Officer,
Nagpur.
5. The Tahsildar,
Narkhed.
6. Katol Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit,
through its Manager,
Katol, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri H.I. Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Shri T.S. Kene, Advocate for the Respondent No.6.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 29
JANUARY, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent.
4. The Order passed by the Collector under Section 6A of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "EC Act") confiscating the
seized essential commodity, namely, 162 bags of grams has been
quashed and set aside by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagpur by the order passed on 22nd December, 2016 in Criminal Appeal
J-cwp134.17.odt 3/5
No.344/2012.
5. The order so passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, a portion of which has been impugned in the present writ
petition, has attained finality so far as the respondent-State is concerned
for the reason that the respondent-State has not challenged it. This
order has also attained finality from the view point of the petitioner in all
respect except for what it fails to do in terms of the procedure prescribed
under sub-Section (2) of Section 6C of the EC Act. So, the challenge
made in this petition is limited to the aspect of following the procedure
of Section 6C(2) of the EC Act. It would be, therefore, useful for us to
briefly advert to the procedure contained in this provision of law.
6. Sub-section (2) of Section 6C, which appears to be a
mandatory provision, lays down that whenever the order of confiscation
of essential commodities passed under Section 6A of the EC Act is
modified or annulled, in the present case it has been annulled, the
Appellate Court is required to decide the question of return of essential
commodity seized or the question of payment of the price of the essential
commodity with reasonable interest, in case it is not possible for the
Appellate Court to return the essential commodity. It further lays down
that for deciding the issue of payment of price of the essential
commodity, the Appellate Court must determine the price in accordance
with either the provisions of Sections 3(3B) or Section 3(3C) or Section
J-cwp134.17.odt 4/5
3(3) of the EC Act. This provision then prescribes that after
determination of the price of the essential commodity in this manner that
an order for payment of the price so determined together with
reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of the essential
commodity be passed by the Appellate Authority.
7. In the present case, it is clear from the impugned order that
seized essential commodity was worthless and thus incapable of being
returned to its owner. This is evident from the third clause of operative
order which is to the effect "seized 162 bags of grams being worthless be
destroyed after appeal period is over." As stated earlier, this finding
rendered by the Appellate Authority has become final. So, the only
course left open for the judicial authority in such a case was to proceed
further in accordance with sub-Section (2) of Section 6C of the EC Act.
It means that the First Appellate Court ought to have determined price of
the seized essential commodity and passed an order for its payment by
the State to the owner of the seized commodity together with reasonable
interest from the day of the seizure of the seized commodity. But, it is
seen from the order dated 22.12.2016, this procedure of law has not
been followed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur thereby
committing serious illegality in the matter causing prejudice to the
interest of the owner of the seized essential commodity. To the extent of
such an omission, the impugned order would have to be considered and
J-cwp134.17.odt 5/5
is considered as illegal and therefore, the matter would have to be
remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for
removal of the lacuna in the impugned order.
8. The appeal is remanded back to the First Appellate Authority
i.e. Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for determination of the
price of the seized essential commodity and its payment to the petitioner,
the owner of the seized essential commodity, in accordance with Section
6C(2) of the EC Act.
9. Parties to appear before the First Appellate Authority on 12 th
February, 2017.
10. The First Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter in
accordance with law within two weeks from the date of appearance of
the parties before it.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE
okMksns
