Bombay High Court
Nadeem Khan Mohamad Isakhan vs Collector Bhandara Dist Collector ... on 28 January, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:1077
1 38.wp1011.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1011 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Nadeem Khan Mohamad Isakhan,
Aged - 39 Years, Occupation-Business,
R/O- House No 1-13-470 Wasim Kiran,
Peer Burhan Nagar, Nanded,
Maharashtra - 431605,
Aadhar No - 467567141309.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. District Collector, Bhandara,
MSEB Colony, Bhandara-441904,
Maharashtra. Ph-07184254777
E-Mail-
[email protected]
2. Police Station Bhandara,
Through Police Inspector, Bhandara
Bhandara Police Station, Bhandara,
Maharashtra.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Arjun Raoka Jain, counsel for petitioner.
Mrs. Ritu Sharma, APP for respondent/state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 28/01/2025
rkn
2 38.wp1011.2024.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule.
3. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. By this petition, the petitioner has limited grievance
that vide order impugned dated 16/10/2024, the Collector
Bhandara in exercise of powers under Section 6A of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 directed that the vehicle truck number
MH-26-CH7373, be released in favour of the petitioner subject to
furnishing the bank grantee in the sum of Rs. 31,70,000/-. The
said order is challenged by the present petitioner by preferring an
appeal under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
before the Sessions Judge, Bhandara. The said appeal stands
dismissed and hence this petition.
5. The petitioner submits that the condition is exorbitant
and it is highly impossible to fulfill the same being the petitioner is
a driver. It is further submitted that, he is deprived of the use of
vehicle, since his attachment and the same vehicle is the only
rkn
3 38.wp1011.2024.odt
source of the livelihood of the present petitioner. He submitted
that condition imposed be modified, and he be permitted to
furnish solvent security in stead of the bank grantee and the cash
security.
6. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on
various orders passed by this Court namely;
(1) Criminal Writ Petition No. 136/2021 (Mohd. Riyaz
Quadir Miya Sheikh Vs Collector, Nagpur and
another) decided on 26/02/2021;
(2) Criminal Writ Petition No. 97/2020 (Shri Mohsin Beg
Shabbir beg Vs The Collector, Buldana) decided on
08/09/2020;
(3) Criminal Writ Petition No.999/2014 (Shri Vikas son
of Shri Bhaurao Meshram Vs Collector, Nagpur
District and another) decided on 05/12/2014;
(4) Criminal Writ Petition No. 1000/2014 (Shri Pramod
son of Manikrao Thakre Vs Collector, Nagpur District
and another) decided on 05/12/2024 and;
(5) Dinesh s/o Deepakkumar Bhaktani Vs Collector,
Nagpur District Collector Office and another [2016
ALL MR (Cri) 4177].
7. The said petition is strongly opposed by the
rkn
4 38.wp1011.2024.odt
respondent/State on the ground that the huge stock was seized,
when it was transporting in the said truck, and the petitioner was
found in possession of the Essential Commodities, which are for
the poor strata of the society, but it was transported for the black
marketing. Thus, considering the same, the condition was imposed
to pay the cash surety as aforestated, and therefore, the petition is
devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
8. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the various
orders passed by this court, it reveals that the legislative intent is
not that in every case, the solvent surety or the cash surety must
be for the sum of the market price of the vehicle nor is it
mandatory that the fine in lieu of confiscation must correspond
with the market price. To the contrary, the provision gives ample
discretion and the market price is the outer limit and not the
minimum threshold.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my
attention as to the many orders passed by the learned Single
Judges of this Court, and the condition of furnishing solvent surety
is substituted by the condition that solvent surety be furnished.
The orders passed by this Court are referred above.
rkn
5 38.wp1011.2024.odt
10. In view of the consistent view of this Court, and in the
facts of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for
modification of the condition.
11. The impugned order is modified to the extent that
instead of payment of the cash surety of Rs. 31,17,000/-
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of Rs. 8,66,000/- towards
the cash surety against the stock, which is seized during the raid
and as far as, the vehicle is concerned, he is ready to furnish the
bank grantee.
13. The impugned order is modified to the extent that
instead of directions to the petitioner to pay the cash surety of
Rs. 13,17,000/-, the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 8,66,000/- as a
cash surety against the stock, and he shall furnish the solvent
surety for the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-
14. The petitioner is permitted to furnish the solvent
surety for the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the truck to the
satisfaction of the Collector.
15. Upon furnishing the solvent surety to the satisfaction
of the Collector, the Collector shall release the vehicle seized
rkn
6 38.wp1011.2024.odt
within 72 hours.
16. Rule is made absolute in the aforestated terms.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/02/2025 18:06:13
