Madras High Court
The District Revenue Officer vs S.Krishna Reddy on 20 April, 2021
W.A.No.984 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.984 of 2020
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID,
Chennai ..Appellants
Vs
S.Krishna Reddy ..Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 06.07.2020 passed in W.P.No.8897 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Pothiraj,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The appellants have raised an interesting question of law
before us. This is with respect to the power of the appellants to
seize/confiscate a vehicle as against an essential commodity illegally
being transported.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.984 of 2020
2. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants submitted that as per the instructions available, such a
power has to be exercised after conducting the enquiry while
determining the valuation of the vehicle also.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ
petitioner submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has
passed orders, based upon which, the learned Single Judge has
passed the order. The vehicle in question has been in custody from
2019 onwards pursuant to the registration of the First Information
Report. Therefore, the vehicle will have to be released.
4. Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
speaks of confiscation of essential commodity. Therefore, we have
no difficulty in construing the said provision to hold that the power
of seizure followed by confiscation is to be exercised only with
respect to the essential commodity alone. To that extent, both the
provisos will have to be read with the main provision. Accordingly,
the said provision will have to be read for seizure and confiscation
which would include the imposition of the payment of amount by
way of option in lieu of confiscation at the market price. Hence, the
fixation of market price is relatable to the essential commodity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.984 of 2020
alone. Therefore, the power to confiscate and thereafter release the
essential commodity in lieu of the market price can only be confined
to the said commodity alone and not for the vehicle that is being
carried on. Admittedly, such a seizure and confiscation would arise
after the registration of the First Information Report.
5. When once a case is registered resulting in First
Information Report, the only option available to the appellants is to
produce it before the jurisdictional Court. This is for the reason, in
Section 6(A) both the main provision and the proviso do not
facilitate the release of the vehicle. When once we hold that the
appellants do not have the power of release of the vehicle, the
consequence is that the vehicle can only be released by the
jurisdictional Court. After all, the seizure has been made after the
registration of the First Information Report. Thus, in the absence of
any power or authority that is being available to the appellants even
the reliance made on the instruction dated 21.02.2013 cannot be
sustainable insofar any decision with respect to the release of the
vehicle is concerned.
6. In such view of the matter, the only remedy open to the
appellants, as discussed by us, in the preceding paragraphs is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.984 of 2020
handover the vehicle in question to the jurisdictional Court.
Thereafter, the person aggrieved can file an application before the
Court and seek the release of the vehicle. In such cases, the
jurisdictional Court can consider the release of vehicle on terms.
7. The decision of the Apex Court relied on has to be seen
in its own context. Inasmuch as we have considered the relevant
provisions, we have come to the aforesaid conclusion.
8. In the case on hand, the respondent has sufficiently
suffered. The First Information Report has been registered on
15.07.2019. Now, more than one and half years have elapsed. The
valuation of the vehicle would have undergone substantial change.
In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge except indicating the position of
law which is obviously binding on the appellants also.
The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
C.M.P.No.12006 of 2020 is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
20.04.2021
Internet : Yes/No
ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.984 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
(ssm)
W.A.No.984 of 2020
20.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
