Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Thakur vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4231 Patna

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20601 of 2021
         ======================================================

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Thakur, S/O late Yogendra Thakur, resident of village - Pithahi, P.S. and District Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the principal secretary Department of food and civil supplies, Patna.

2. The collectore-Cum District magistrate, Mahepura.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Madhepura.

4. The Sub-Divisional officer, Madhepura.

5. The District Supply officer, Madhepura.

6. Block Supply officer, Madhepura.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal (SC4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Date : 04-08-2022

Heard Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, learned Advocate for the

petitioner and Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, for the State. Patna High Court CWJC No.20601 of 2021 dt.04-08-2022

The petitioner is aggrieved by the confiscation of his

vehicle, which was seized in connection with Madhepura P. S. Case

No. 333 of 2016, dated 19.06.2016. The vehicle was found to be

laden with subsidized foodgrains, namely, rice and wheat. The

petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle which was let out

to somebody on oral contract and the petitioner had no idea that

his vehicle would be used for transporting subsidized foodgrains,

thereby making the vehicle liable for seizure and confiscation.

A confiscation proceeding was started with respect to the

vehicle belonging to the petitioner and the District Magistrate, on

finding that there was no good ground to believe the defence of

the petitioner that he had no idea about the vehicle being put to

such wrong use, directed for the confiscation of the vehicle. The

aforesaid order of the Collector was affirmed by the Appellate

Authority, namely, the District Judge of the concerned District.

The petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders of

confiscation and its affirmation in Appeal before this Court vide

C.W.J.C. No. 5064 of 2018 in which it was contended that both

the Courts did not at all advert to the fact as to which Control Patna High Court CWJC No.20601 of 2021 dt.04-08-2022

Order had been violated for any justification of seizure and

confiscation of the vehicle in question.

Accepting the aforesaid ground of the petitioner, a Bench

of this Court remitted the matter before the Confiscating

Authority, namely, the District Magistrate- cum-Collector,

Madhepura to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after

identifying the Control Order which allegedly had been violated by

the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was decided by the

Confiscating Authority. It was found that under the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955, a notification of the Government vide

G.S.R. No. 613 (E) dated 31.01.2001 was issued which mandated

that anyone who would be found engaged in the distribution and

handling of essential commodities or diversion or theft of stocks

from central godown to Fair Price Shop premises or at the

premises of the Fair Price Shop would be violating the provisions

of the Act. The explanation appended thereto defined "diversion"

to mean unauthorized movement of essential commodities

released from the central godown but not reaching the intended

beneficiaries under the Public Distribution System. Patna High Court CWJC No.20601 of 2021 dt.04-08-2022

Apart from this, it was found that no evidence was

furnished by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he had

given the vehicle on oral agreement for rent to somebody else who

had put the vehicle to misuse.

On these two grounds, it was found that the vehicle was

liable to be confiscated.

After the passing of the aforesaid order by the District

Magistrate, the petitioner again preferred an application before

this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 2021 of 2019.

In this instance, finding that the petitioner had not

exhausted his remedy of appeal, he was directed to prefer an

appeal, if he remained aggrieved with the orders passed by the

Confiscating Authority.

Armed by the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority vide

Confiscation Appeal No. 3 of 2019 which too was dismissed on the

same set of grounds, namely, that the Government notification

issued under the Control Order of 2001 was violated and the

petitioner did not bring any evidence in support of his claim that

he had no idea about the vehicle being put to wrong use. Patna High Court CWJC No.20601 of 2021 dt.04-08-2022

From the pleadings of the petitioner, we do not find any

material on record in support of the claim of the petitioner that he

had no idea about the vehicle being put to wrong use without his

consent. A bald statement has been repeated at all stages that the

vehicle was given on oral contract to somebody to ply the same.

While perusing the records of this case, this Court also

found that the Confiscating Authority, in the first instance, had

also explored the possibility of giving back the vehicle to the

petitioner on the market value. This, perhaps, was under a

mistaken notion that the provisions contained in Section 6(A) of

the Central Act was available in the State Act as well.

The State Act does not provide for any such provision. In

fact, the State Act specifically provides that the vehicle shall not

be released once confiscation proceeding is initiated and it could

only be released on the orders of the Court which does not find

the criminal accusation/prosecution against the petitioner to be

correct and orders for release of such vehicle.

In that view of the matter, such option given by the

Confiscating Authority was never accepted by the petitioner and

was also not noted by the Appellate Authority.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20601 of 2021 dt.04-08-2022

Finding no fault with the order passed by the

Confiscating Authority as also the Appellate Authority, we are left

with no option but to dismiss this writ petition, but without any

order as to costs.

The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

( Jitendra Kumar, J) skm/ashishkr/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          11.08.2022
Transmission Date       NA