Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Sunder Katare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1 WP-27020-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 27020 of 2021
(SHYAM SUNDER KATARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-12-2021
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Maneesh Kholiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
This writ petition has been filed seeking respondent authority/ State to
pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner within specified time for
the loss and damage of his 942 bags of fertilizers.
Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
a case under the provisions of Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 was registered at Police Station Deori under case crime no.354/2013.
Thereafter criminal case no.RCT-1400/2013 was registered.
After registration of the criminal case, a panchnama was prepared on
06.08.2013, confiscating 942 bags of various brands of fertilizer as are
mentioned in Annexure-P/1. Thereafter they were handed over in Supurdgi of
one Shri Narendra s/o Vishwanath Dixit of Deori.
It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Deori vide order dated 19.06.2019 had directed for
release of 942 bags of fertilizer and this order was issued in favour of SHO
Deori, District- Sagar.
Petitioner's contention is that he had moved an application to the
Judicial Magistrate First Class for execution of the order dated 19.06.2019 on
18.10.2019 but order was never executed and thereafter vide judgment dated
26.12.2020, petitioner was acquitted of the charges under Section 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act. It is submitted that petitioner had approached the
Police authorities who had directed the fertilizer inspector, Agriculture
Department, Deori to hand over concerned fertilizer on Supurdginama but
when no action was taken, a panchnama was prepared that fertilizer was not
in its original physical condition as a result, its bags cannot be counted and
agriculturist Shyam Sundar Katare has refused to take seized fertilizer.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI
Date: 2021.12.17 10:07:26 IST
2 WP-27020-2021
Petitioner's contention is that he had moved an application before the
learned JMFC seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- but that has been
rejected by learned JMFC vide order dated 27.08.2021 recording a finding of
fact that proceedings for handing over fertilizer on supurdginama was carried
out on 20.07.2019 and 03.02.2021 but applicant himself had refused to take
confiscated fertilizer and during the pendency of the application applicant was
free to move an application for use of confiscated fertilizer or for its auction
and keeping the money so realized in a separate account but since applicant
failed to carry out any of these actions, therefore, it is observed that no
indulgence is required and rejected the application.
In case of Abl International Ltd and Anr Vs. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others (2004) 3 SCC 553
Supreme Court held that where the disputed questions of fact which requires
consideration of evidence which is not on record, writ can be denied and writ
petition is not maintainable. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme court
in case of Sm t. Gunwant Kaur and Others Vs. Municipal Committee,
Bhatinda (1969) 3 SCC 247 wherein, it is observed that where a petition
raises complex questions of fact which cannot be determined easily then High
Court can decline maintainability of such writ petition.
Even otherwise, petitioner has a remedy to file a suit for recovery of
damages and in the opinion of this Court, writ petition involving disputed
question of fact and requiring evidence as to whether petitioner had refused to
take Supurdgi or whether he had acted in time to obtain Supurdgi etc.
requires adducing evidence, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. View
of this Court finds support from the law laid down by Supreme Court in case
of M/S Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh and
Others in Civil Appeal No.1155/2021 arising out of SLP(C) No.1688/2021
decided on 20.04.2021.
Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI
Date: 2021.12.17 10:07:26 IST
3 WP-27020-2021
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
AT
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI
Date: 2021.12.17 10:07:26 IST
