Sri Raghunath Setty vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 216 Kant

                          1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

         WRIT PETITION NO.34 OF 2022(GM-EC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAGHUNATH SETTY
S/O RAMAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR PRS AGRO TECH RICE MILL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.3072, AC, ABDUL ALI ROAD,
BANGARPET -563 114.
                                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PHANINDRA K N, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
   CHIEF SECRETARY,
   DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
   CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
   M S BUILDING,
   BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
   DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
   DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
   CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
   NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
   BENGALURU-560 052.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
   AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
   KOLAR DISTRICT,
   KOLAR-563 101.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP A/W
    SRI. SUBRAMANYA R, AAG FOR R1-R3)
                                         2

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.22.12.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 A COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-J AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                                   ORDER

Petitioner being the proprietor of the rice mill in

question is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for

assailing the order dated 22.12.2021 made by the first

respondent at Annexure-J, operative portion of which

reads as under:

"CzÉñÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀiÁzÀ ²æà gÀWÀÄ£ÁxÀ ±ÉnÖ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ªÉÄ.¦DJð¸ï DUÉÆæÃmÉPï gÉÊ¸ï «Ä¯ï, §AUÁgÀ¥ÉÃmÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ DAVÃPÀj¹zÀÄÝ, CUÀvÀå ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1955gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÉPÀë£ï 36 7gÀr f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯Éè PÉÆïÁgÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀiªÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÉƼÀUÉ PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV EvÀåxÀð ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ, ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯ÉêÁjUÉƽ¹zÉ."

2. In effect, the impugned order sets at naught

the interim order dated 10.11.2021 made by the third

respondent Commissioner at Annexure-D whereby

petitioner was permitted to take the subject essential

commodities namely, 8497 quintals of PDS-Rice & 1213.70

quintals of PDS-Broken Rice, valued in a sum of

Rs.2,31,84,420/- (about 2.31 crore plus) by furnishing a

Bank Guarantee or some immovable property by way of

security.

3. FACTS IN BRIEF:

i) The third respondent instituted the proceedings for

the confiscation of the essential commodities namely, 8497

quintals of PDS-Rice,1213.70 quintals of PDS-Broken Rice,

1780.35 quintals of non-PDS Rice, 270 quintals of Feeds &

13633 quintals of Paddy, that were found in the premises

of petitioner's rice mill in exercise of power under Section

6A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; petitioner

had filed W.P.No.8988/2021 for a direction to the

respondents 1 & 2 not to seize or confiscate the said

commodities nor shift the same away from his premises; a

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated

11.08.2021 disposed off the same keeping open the

contentions for being urged in the proceedings in question

and did not grant much reprieve to the petitioner.

ii) The third respondent - Deputy Commissioner

having initiated the proceedings had permitted the

petitioner to take release of a part of the seized

commodities by directing him to furnish Bank Guarantee

or immovable property by way of security vide order dated

10.11.2021; this was challenged by the official respondents

in Appeal No.7/2021 contending that the release was

impermissible; the same came to be favoured by the

impugned order; that is how the writ petition is presented.

4. After service of notice, the respondents having

entered appearance through the learned HCGP & learned

AAG oppose the writ petition making submission in

justification of the impugned order and the reasons on

which it has been constructed; they contend that the

impugned order has brought about a just result and

therefore, a Writ Court should not undertake a deeper

examination thereof, regardless of arguable lacunae

therein; so contending, they seek dismissal of the writ

petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court

declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following

reasons:

a) The first submission made on behalf of the

petitioner that the appeal was incompetent in view of

decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SYED

AHMED Vs. STATE, Crl.RP No.340/1981 disposed off on

06.08.1982 need not be much gone into, the fact matrix of

the case at hands being a bit different; this apart, for

denying relief to the litigant in the said case, the

Coordinate Bench had given another reason that the

Deputy Commissioner had ordered the sale of the seized

commodities through the proper society to the ration card

holders that too at the controlled rates and thereafter to

deposit the sale proceeds; added, upholding the contention

of the petitioner would result into revival of the

unsustainable order of the Deputy Commissioner and put

seal of the Court thereto; such an exercise cannot be done

by the Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory

jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227, even

if there is some arguable lacuna in the impugned order.

b) After the seizure of the commodities in question,

what should happen to the same when they are perishable

goods by very nature, is a matter of statutory scheme as

enacted in Sub-section 2 of Section 6A of the 1955 Act; the

Apex Court in SHAMBHU DAYAL AGARWALA Vs. STATE

OF WEST BENGAL, (1990) 3 SCC 549, has observed that

Section 6A(2) does not permit release of the seized

commodities to the owner thereof and that the same

should be disposed off for the benefit of the public at large;

that being the position, the Deputy Commissioner was

absolutely unjustified in directing release of the

commodities to the petitioner on his furnishing a Bank

Guarantee or immovable property by way of security.

c) The vehement submission of learned Sr. Advocate

Mr. Phanindra that his client ought to have been given an

opportunity of hearing before a decision is made to dispose

off the seized commodities again is bit difficult to

countenance; his reliance on a Coordinate Bench decision

in SRI ESWARA RICE MILL INDUSTRIES Vs. DEPUTY

COMMISISONER, 1985 CRI.L.J.944, does not much come

to assistance; in the said decision, a great judge of this

Court of the yester years (K A Swamy, J.) has only

observed as under:

"As a rule it cannot be laid down that notice and an opportunity of being heard must he given to an affected party or person before an order for disposal of the seized essential commodity in accordance with the provisions of S.6A(2) of the Act is passed. However, there may be cases in which having regard to the facts and circumstances involved therein nothing is lost if a notice is issued and an opportunity of being heard is afforded to the affected person or the party. In such cases, it is necessary to comply with the rule of audi alteram partem, failure to do so, vitiates the order passed under S.6A(2) of Act."

d) The opportunity of hearing is a principle of natural

justice needs no elaboration; however, what purpose would

be served by giving such an opportunity is also relevant

when the same is claimed; when the scheme of Sub-

section 2 of Section 6A specifically provides for the

disposal of the seized commodities in a prescribed manner

and with no discretion to disobey the dicta enacted

therein, the question of granting an opportunity of hearing

would not arise as rightly contended by learned AAG Mr.

Subramanya; after all, law shuns the formality; an

opportunity of hearing cannot be claimed as an empty

formality when hearing would not possibly change the

outcome of proceedings.

e) All the above having been said, this Court hastens

to add that the confiscation proceedings initiated under

Section 6A(1) cannot be kept pending for all the time to

come as rightly argued by Mr. Phanindra; therefore, there

is justification for prescribing the timeline within which the

said proceedings need to be accomplished, should all the

stakeholders co-operate.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed off directing the third respondent to accomplish

the pending confiscation proceedings within a period of

eight weeks and with the participation of all the

stakeholders; all contentions in that regard are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv