Madhab Chandra Sahoo & Others vs Collector-Cum-District ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 13667 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
                    W.P.(C) No.21517 of 2014

     Madhab Chandra Sahoo & others .....           Petitioners


                                 -Versus-


     Collector-Cum-District Magistrate ......        Opposite Parties
     Nayagarh and others

          For Petitioners     : Ms. S. Mohapatra, proxy Counsel
                                on behalf of Mr. B. Mohanty,
                                Advocate

          For Opp. Parties : Mr. B. Panigrahi
                             (Addl. Standing Counsel)
                                -----
          CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
_____________________________________________________________

         Date of Hearing and Judgment: 06.11.2023
_____________________________________________________________

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. The Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition praying

therein to quash the Order dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure-1) passed

by the Collector, Nayagarh in E.C. Case No.2 of 2014 under Section

6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, shortly herein after

referred to as "the Act", with a further prayer to direct the Opposite

Parties to return the confiscated articles i.e. paddy crops amounting

to Q. 142.58 KG (204 jari bags).

2. The case of the Petitioners is that, on 17.02.2014 at night, one

Gobinda Chandra Champati, who was the owner of the truck

bearing No.OD-02J-2720, sent his vehicle with loaded brinjals to

Berhampur. When the said truck was returning on the next date

i.e. 18.02.2014 morning, after unloading the brinjals, the Petitioner

No.1, who was a farmer, along with other co-villagers/farmers, the

present Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, approached the driver of the said

vehicle to carry their paddy bags to the Rice Mill of M/s

Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., at Sunakhala for milling of their

paddy. On being so approached, the driver of the vehicle agreed to

bring the paddy to the said Rice Mill. But, on the way, at Village

Khatia, the Officer In-Charge (OIC), Sarankul Police Station,

without any authority detained the said truck and paddy and kept

it inside the premises of Sarankul Police Station.

When the OIC detained the truck, the Petitioners informed

him that they were carrying their paddy bags to the mill of the said

agency at Sunakhala for milling their paddy. The OIC, Sarankul,

did not give any heed to the same and asked the driver Sri Gobinda

Chandra Champati to move the vehicle to Sarankul Police Station

for further investigation of the case.

Thereafter, on the next day i.e. 19.02.2014, the Marketing

Inspector, Odagaon Block seized the said paddy bags on

apprehension of purchase of the same from the farmers at below

minimum price, illegally and without any enquiry sent same for

confiscation.

The case of the Petitioners is that the Opposite Party No.2

presumed that the driver of the said vehicle has illegally transported

the paddy from Village Damasahi under Ranapur Block to Chikiti

under Ganjam District, as the driver could not produce any

document towards transportation of paddy through his vehicle.

Hence, E.C. proceeding was initiated which was registered as E.C.

No.2 of 2014 against the Petitioner No.1 and the driver for

allegedly violating Clause (4) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy

Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order,

1982. Accordingly, on being noticed E.C. No.2 of 2014, they filed

Show-Cause Reply. But without considering the same in its proper

prospective, the impugned order was passed in E.C. No.2 of 2014.

3. Heard Ms. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners so

also Mr. Panigrahi, learned ASC for the State-Opposite Parties.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits, before passing

the impugned Order dated 05.09.2014 by the Opposite Party No.1,

in terms of the Section 6A of the Act, the Petitioners were not given

any notice in writing and the procedure to be followed under

Section 6B of the Act was never followed before passing the

impugned order, thereby the Petitioners were debarred from the

opportunity to have their say. The principles of natural justice was

not followed before passing the impugned order. She further

submits, the said proceeding was initiated on mere apprehension of

purchase of paddy from the farmers at below minimum supported

price so also due to non-submission of valid documents and for

alleged contravention of Clause-4 of the Odisha Rice and Paddy

Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order,

1982, though they being cultivators, were bringing paddy in terms

of Clause-8 of the said Order, 1982. She further submits, the

Opposite Party No.1 (Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Nayagarh),

while passing the impugned Order dated 05.09.2014, failed to

appreciate the fact that the Petitioners are farmers/cultivators, who

are carrying paddy to M/s Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd. for milling

of the said paddy and the initiation of proceeding under Section 6A

of the Act is not maintainable.

5. Learned ASC for the State Opposite Parties draws attention of

this Court to the Counter Affidavit filed by the State and the report

of the Marketing Inspector, Odagaon Block dated 19.02.2014, as at

Annexure-1 Series, and submits, the impugned Order has been

passed based on the said report and after giving due opportunity of

hearing to the Petitioners in terms of Section 6B of the Act.

Learned ASC further submits, in the said proceeding under

Section 6A of the Act, the driver so also the owner of the vehicle

were parties, whereas the present Writ Petition has been preferred

by the owner of the vehicle along with other three persons claiming

themselves to be the alleged farmers/ co-villagers, who were not

party to E.C. Case No.2 of 2014. He further submits, there is a

provision of Appeal under Section 6C of the Act and Petitioner No.1,

along with the driver of the vehicle, ought to have preferred an

Appeal challenging the Order passed by the Opposite Party No.1 in

a proceeding under Section 6A of the Act.

6. It is appropriate to mention here that since an allegation was

made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that despite passing

of interim Order in their favour the confiscated paddies were sold,

on being directed by coordinate Bench, the Opposite Party No.2 has

filed an Affidavit on 11.07.2023 indicating therein that the interim

Order passed by this Court was never communicated to the I.O.-

Cum-M.I., Odagaon Block on or before 26.11.2014 nor the same

was communicated by the Petitioners to the I.O. Hence, in due

obedience to the Order dated 05.09.2014 of the Collector, Nayagarh,

as the paddies are perishable in nature and deteriorated due to

natural decay, the same were disposed of on 26.11.2014 and the

sale proceed of the paddy was deposited in proper Head of Account

vide Treasury Challan dated 26.11.2014.

7. Though the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has received

the copy of such Affidavit, a query being made by the Court, she

failed to apprise this Court as to communication of the interim

Order dated 18.11.2014 passed by this Court to the concerned

Authority by her clients and submits, she has no instruction from

the Petitioners regarding such Affidavit.

8. However, with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition, as

raised by the learned ASC for the State-Opposite Parties, learned

Counsel for the Petitioners submits, since the very initiation of

proceeding under Section 6A of the Act was bad and not

maintainable, the Petitioners were under bonafide impression and

good faith that, despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal,

the Writ Petition is maintainable, though there is a provision of

appeal under Section 6C of the Act. However, in view of the

technical issues raised by the learned ASC with regarding to

maintainability of the Writ Petition so also locus standi of other

Petitioners i.e. the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, learned Counsel for the

Petitioners prays for withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to

prefer an appeal before the appropriate Authority in terms of

Section 6C of the Act, 1955.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty

as prayed for.

10. Needless to mention here that if an Appeal is preferred in

terms of Section 6C of the Act within fifteen days from the date of

issuance of certified copy of this judgment, along with an

application for condonation of delay, the same shall be considered

by the Appellate Authority in terms of provisions enshrined under

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

11. Since this is a matter of the year, 2014, the Appellate

Authority shall do well to deal with and dispose of the Appeal within

a period of three months from the date of preferring the Appeal.

12. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be issued on proper

application as per rule.

(S.K. MISHRA) (JUDGE)

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PADMA CHARAN Orissa High Court, Cuttack DASH Designation: Personal Assistant Dated, 6th November, 2023/Padma Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Nov-2023 12:34:08