Ravinderpal Singh Bhatiya S/O ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Pso ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5548 Bom

                                  1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2022

        Ravinderpal Singh Bhatiya s/o Santok
        Sing Bhatiya, Age 55 year, Occu.
        Transport, R/o Plot No. 51, Opposite
        Gupta Aata Chakki, Tathagat Colony,
        Misal Lay-out, Nagpur.
                                                   ... PETITIONER

                                VERSUS
   1.   State of Maharashtra,
        through its Police Station Officer,
        Jaripatka, Nagpur.


   2.   The Collector, Nagpur City,
        Collector Office, Civil Lines,
        Nagpur.

                                                  ... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
       Shri Vishwadeep N. Mate, Advocate for the petitioner.
       Shri H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for respondents - State.
______________________________________________________________

                       CORAM          :   VINAY JOSHI, J.

                       DATED.         :   17.06.2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of both the parties.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated

16.12.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Nagpur in terms of

Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the EC

Act'). Though the District Magistrate has ordered for release of vehicle,

however, imposed conditions of furnishing bank guarantee equating the

amount of vehicle. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

4. Initially, the petitioner has challenged the same order

before the Court of Sessions by invoking revisional jurisdiction of

Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has disposed of the revision

on account of non-maintainability. The Revisional Court noted that the

impugned order is appealable under Section 6-C of the EC Act and

therefore, the revision being not maintainable, it is came to be disposed

of.

5. There is no dispute that the impugned order dated

16.12.2021 was passed by the District Magistrate in terms of Section

6-A of the EC Act. The statute itself has provided a remedy of appeal

under Section 6-C which ought to have resorted for the redressal.

Apparently, legality and sustainability of the impugned order has not

been tested in the appeal provided by the statute. It appears that

instead of preferring an appeal, the remedy of revision has been

resorted perhaps under misconception. In the circumstance, it is

appropriate to allow the petitioner to resorts the statutory remedy of

appeal.

6. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to file

statutory appeal under Section 6-C of the EC Act before the appropriate

authority.

7. Having regard to the fact that earlier revision was filed, the

Appellate authority shall decide the appeal on its own merits without

considering the point of limitation, provided the appeal shall be filed

within 15 days from today.

8. The Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of in above

terms.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Trupti

TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL

18.06.2022 14:42