Patna High Court
Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 14 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6108 of 2017
======================================================
Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Singh son of Sri Manoj Kumar Singh resident of
village Kurmuri, P.S. Sikarhatta, District Ara, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate cum Confiscating Authority, District Bhojpur Ara,
Bihar.
4. The Block Supply Officer Circle Tarari, District Bhojpur, Bihar.
5. The Officer In Charge cum Investigating Officer, P.S. Sikarhatta, District
Bhojpur, Bihar.
6. The District Manager, State Food Corporation, Bhojpur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC 4
For the BSFC : M/s Shailendra Kumar Singh
Utkarsha Utpal, Advocates
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-02-2025
1. The Writ petition has been preferred by
the petitioner for quashing of the Show Cause
Notice dated 08.03.2016 (Annexure 2) and entire
proceedings of Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 9
of 2015-16 (State Versus Niraj Kumar Singh)
instituted Under Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, pending in the Court of the
Learned Collector, Bhojpur (Ara) cum Confiscating
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
2/19
authority.
2. The key facts derived from the petition
are that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Singh
Rice Mill situated near Sikarhatta Police Station at
District of Bhojpur, involved in the business of
selling and buying rice, wheat and other items. The
genesis of the case is the institution of criminal
case on the file of Sikarhatta PS vide Case No. 13
of 2016 (G R No. 1033 of 2016) dated 02.02.2016
instituted for alleged commission of the offences,
under Section 411 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities
Act (Annexure 1). It is stated in the Writ petition
that the aforesaid First Information Report was
instituted on the basis of a raid which was
conducted in the Rice Mill of the petitioner on
suspicion that the Government Scheme food grains
was dealt with the Rice Mill and for the purposes of
black marketing. Pursuant to the institution of the
FIR, the entire rice weighing about 3017.75
quintals were seized and was handed over on the
Jimmenama to the District Manager, State Food
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
3/19
Corporation, Bhojpur. It is further submitted that
the District Supply Officer, Bhojpur, vide Letter No.
201 dated 18.02.2016 and the Sub Divisional
officer Piro, vide Letter No. 80 dated 11.02.2016
reported the factum of seizure to the District
Magistrate-cum-Confiscating Authority, Bhojpur, in
terms of requirement of Section 6-A of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. It is further contended that on the basis
of the report, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,
invoking the provisions of Section 6-A of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, instituted a
Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2015 - 16. The
seized food grains were directed to be sold and
Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner,
seeking reply as to why the food grains be not
confiscated.
4. It is further submitted by the petitioner
that, during the pendency of the FIR and the
Confiscation case, the petitioner approached this
Hon'ble Court vide CWJC No. 5652 of 2016 for the
release of goods and other ancillary reliefs. A
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
4/19
Bench of this Hon'ble Court, after hearing the
District Administration as well as the State Food
Corporation, passed an order on 06.04.2016 in
CWJC No. 5652 of 2016, directing the provisional
release of the goods in favor of the petitioner,
subject to the observance of certain formalities. In
compliance with the directions of the order of this
Court, the petitioner was directed to furnish the
documents, in support of the ownership of rice
and also to furnish the requisite bonds/securities
on 17.05.2016 and 25.05.2016, respectively.
5. It is submitted by the Learned counsel
for the petitioner that being completely oblivious of
his earlier orders dated 17.05.2016 and
31.05.2016
, the District Magistrate had issued in
purported compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble
Court for provisional release, the District
Magistrate, vide his order dated 09.08.2016 issued
a Show Cause Notice on the Sub Divisional Officer,
as to why, the seized Rice has not been sold in
open market till date. It is submitted that,
thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
MJC No. 3110 of 2016 on 05.09.2016 and when the
matter was taken up on 14.09.2016, it was
informed to the Hon'ble Court that the orders have
been complied with and, accordingly, the contempt
proceedings were dropped vide Annexure 4.
6. It is further submitted by the Learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
aggrieved by the issuance of the show cause
notice and continuation of the confiscation case by
the the District Magistrate - cum - Collector, under
the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955.
7. It is specifically submitted by the
petitioner that the allegation of attempting black
marketing is inherently absurd and contradicts the
respondents' own official records. Specifically, after
perusal of the Goods Inward Register, particularly
with reference to page 13 and entries vide Sl. Nos.
102, 103, 104, and 105, show that the rice loaded
onto the trucks was properly unloaded, and
appropriate entries were made in the register. A
copy of the relevant page of the Goods Inward
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
Register, showing the receipt of food grains in the
recipient godown, has been annexed with the First
Information Report. The petitioner further pointed
out that the receipt of the rice has also been
properly recorded at page 1 of the Stock Register
maintained in the State Food Corporation's
godowns at Piro. While the respondents are
alleging that the seized rice, which belonged to the
State Food Corporation, was diverted to the
petitioner's rice mill for the purpose of black
marketing, instead of being unloaded at the
godown, however, their own records certify that
the rice was properly unloaded at the recipient
godown. The proper unloading of the food grains is
also supported by the transporter's subsequent
billing for transportation charges to the
Corporation in connection with the same stock.
8. It is further specifically contended by
the petitioner that the jurisdictional officers of the
State Food Corporation, after verifying the records
and certifying that the goods which was entrusted
to the transporter were properly unloaded in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
recipient godown without any loss, and
recommended payment to the transporter vide
Letter No. 1698 dated 02.11.2016. It is further
contended that the Corporation's Headquarters
released the payment in favour of the transporter,
and consequently CWJC No. 19487 of 2016, which
was filed for the release of admitted dues by the
transporter was rendered, infructuous, as per the
Hon'ble Court's order dated 01.03.2017. Notably,
both the payment recommendation and actual
payment wad done after lodging of the First
Information Report, highlighting the absurdity of
the allegations. It is also contended that to the
petitioner's knowledge, after physically verifying
the godown, no corresponding shortage of the
seized food grains was reported.
9. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in light of the fact that the District
Magistrate had pre-judged the matter even before
issuing the Show Cause Notice, and considering
that after being satisfied about the ownership of
the goods, the food grains were released in favor
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
of the petitioner, as well as the payments were
made to the transporter for the stock alleged to
have been deviated, therefore, the continuance of
the present confiscation proceedings is a clear
abuse of the process and the jurisdiction vested
with the relevant authority.
10. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, given the facts of the case and in
accordance with the guidelines and directions
issued by the Constitutional Courts for quashing
quasi-judicial proceedings, the continuance of this
case is untenable. Lastly, the Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that based on the facts
presented above and the stand of the respondents
in the contemporaneous proceedings, there is no
jurisdictional basis to initiate and continue any
proceedings under the provisions of the Essential
Commodities Act.
11. A counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of respondent No. 6. It is submitted on
behalf of respondent No. 6 that the petitioner had
earlier approached this Hon'ble Court vide CWJC
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
No. 5652/2016. The Hon'ble Court vide its order
dated 06.04.2016 had been pleased to direct the
release of the seized articles in favour of the
petitioner by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara
who happens to be the confiscating authority
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of the order on
furnishing sufficient guarantee/security, 10% of
that in nature of cash/bank guarantee to the
satisfaction of the confiscation authority and on
proper verification of the ownership after keeping
sufficient quantity as sample to be exhibited in the
case concerned. It is further contended that the
Hon'ble Court further observed that however, the
release would be subject to final result of the
Confiscation Case no. 9/2015-16, as well as
Sikarhatta P.S Case No. 13/2016.
12. It is the contention of respondent
No. 6 that the aforesaid Sikarhatta P.S Case is still
under process and the confiscation case, with
regard to which the Show Cause Notice under
challenge is also pending.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
13. It is submitted by the Learned
counsel for the respondents that bare perusal of
order sheet of Revenue Misc. Case No. 9/2015-16
would revealed that in the light of the direction
issued by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.
5652/2016 vide order dated 06.04.2016, a report
regarding the ownership of the seized articles has
been mentioned therein which clearly goes to show
that the statement of the petitioner regarding
genuineness of his ownership is absolutely false as
the report mentions that the ownership is highly
doubtful and in support of this report a detail
reason has also been assigned which is recorded in
the order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-2).
14. It is further submitted by the
Learned counsel for the respondents that in view
of the above mentioned fact and circumstances of
the case the petitioner is trying to mislead this
Hon'ble Court by making false statement about the
ownership of the seized articles.
15. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the the Learned counsel for
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
the respondents and perused the records.
16. At this juncture, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has specifically contended in paragraphs
28 to 32 of the writ petition that the goods/food
grains, which are the subject matter of the FIR,
were in fact transported to the Godown of the
State Food Corporation. After verifying the
transportation bills and certifying that no loss had
been caused to the Corporation, the transportation
bills of the transporter were released. The State
Government and the BSFC have not disputed this
factual position--that no loss was caused to the
Corporation. Furthermore, the food grains
mentioned in the FIR of Sikkarhatta P.S. Case No.
13 of 2016 were safely and properly transported. In
the counter-affidavit, the respondents have not
contradicted these statements.
17. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner draws the attention of this Court on the
Judgment dated 28.09.2022 passed in CWJC No.
732 of 2022 (Ganpati Traders Vs. The State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
Bihar & Ors) paragraph 15 reported in
MANU/BH/1287/2022 by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court. For better appreciations of the facts,
relevant portion of paragraph 15 of the CWJC No.
732 of 2022(supra) is quoted herein below:
"14. On an analysis of the
action right from the stage of letters
written by the Block Supply Officer till
passing of the order by the Additional
District Magistrate, Vaishali it would
appear that all these authorities had
proceeded to assume upon themselves
that these are the wheat which are
government subsidized wheat. They had
no patience to wait for the result of the
investigation of the case lodged on
10.06.2022 even for a reasonable period
during which the I.O. could have collected
certain materials. The investigating
agency could have in such matters after
collecting evidences within a reasonable
period taken a view as to whether there
are sufficient materials to show that the
wheat are government subsidized wheat.
So far as Section 6-A of the E.C. Act is
concerned, it talks of confiscation of
foodgrains, edible oilseeds, edible oils,
etc. Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 reads
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
as under:--
"[6A. Confiscation of
foodgrains, edible oilseeds, edible oils,
etc.--(1) Where any essential commodity
is seized in pursuance of an order made
under section 3 in relation thereto, it shall
be reported without any unreasonable
delay to the Collector of the district in
which such essential commodity is seized
and the Collector may, if he thinks it
expedient so to do, inspect or cause to be
inspected such essential commodity,
whether or not the prosecution is
instituted for the contravention of the
order, may order confiscation of --
(a) the essential commodity so seized;
(b) any package, covering or receptacle
in which such essential commodity is
found; and
(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance used in carrying such
essential commodity:
Provided that, without prejudice to
any action which may be taken under
any other provision of this Act, no
foodgrains or edible oilseeds in
pursuance of an order made under
section 3 in relation thereto from a
producer shall, if the seized
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
foodgrains or edible oilseeds have
been produced by him, be
confiscated under this section:
(2) Where the Collector, on receiving a
report of seizure or on inspection of any
essential commodity under sub-section(1),
is of the opinion that the essential
commodity is subject to speedy and
natural decay or it is otherwise expedient
in the public interest so to do, he may
order the same to be sold at the controlled
price, if any, fixed under any law for the
time being in force;
(3) In the case of foodgrains, where there
is no controlled price, the Collector, if he
thinks fit, may order the foodgrains seized
under sub-section (1) to be sold through
fair price shops at the price fixed by the
Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be for the
sale of such foodgrains to the public
through these shops or may order such
foodgrains by public auction.
(4) The Collector shall whenever it is
practicable so to do having regard to the
nature of the essential commodity take
and preserve sample of the same in the
prescribed manner before its sale or
distribution.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
(5) Where any essential commodity is sold
as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof,
after deduction of all expenses of the sale
or auction, as the case may be, shall-
(a) where no order of confiscation is
ultimately passed by the Collector; or
(b) where an order passed on appeal
under sub-clause (1) of section 6C so
requires; or
(c) in the case of prosecution being
instituted for the contravention of the
order in respect of which an order of
confiscation has been made under this
section and where the person concerned
is acquitted to paid to the owner thereof
or the person from whom it is seized:
Provided that in the case of foodgrains
sold through fair price shops in
accordance with subsections (2) and (3)
the owner shall be paid for the foodgrains
so sold, the price fixed by the State
Government, for retail sale of such
foodgrains through such shops less all
expenses of sale or auction under sub-
sections (2) and (3). (6) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of
1974), when Collector or the appellate
authority is seized with the matter under
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
this section no court shall entertain any
application in respect of essential
commodities, any package covering,
receptacle, any animal, vehicle or other
conveyance used in carrying such
commodities as far as its release,
distribution etc. is concerned and the
jurisdiction of Collector or the appellate
authority with regard to the disposal of
the same shall be exclusive.
(7) The State Government may by
notification in the Official Gazette,
authorise any officer not below the rank of
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to discharge all
or any of the functions of a Collector
under this section.
(8) The Collector shall for the purposes of
this Act have the same powers as are
vested in a Court under the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 when making
enquiries under this section in respect of
following matters, namely:--
(a) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(b) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining
him on oath; and
(c) compelling the production of
documents.
(9) All enquiries and proceedings under
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
this section before the Collector and the
appellate authority shall be deemed to be
judicial proceeding and while discharging
functions under this section the Collector
and the appellate authority shall be
deemed to be a Court."
18. The Learned counsel further
brought to the notice of this Court a Notification
i.e., Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stock
Limits and Movement Restrictions) On Specified
Foodstuffs Order, 2002, published vide Notification
Gazette of India, Extra, Part 2, Section 3(ii), dated
thereof. For better appreciation of the fact, Clause
Nos. 3 and 5 are quoted herein below:
" 3. With the coming into effect of this
Order any dealer may freely buy,
stock, sell, transport, distribute,
dispose, acquire, use or consume any
quantity of wheat, paddy/rice,
coarsegrains, sugar, [edible oilseeds
and edible oils, pulses, gur, wheat
products (Namely maida, rava, suji,
atta, resultant atta and bran) and
hydrogenated vegetable oil or
vanaspathi] and shall not require a
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
permit or license therefor under any
order issued under the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955.
5. Issue of any order by State
Governments under powers delegated
in GSR 452(E) dated the 25th October,
1972 issued by the Government of
India in the then Ministry of Agriculture
(Department of Food) and GSR 800(E)
dated the 9th June, 1978 issued by the
Government of India in the then
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
(Department of Food) for regulating by
license, permit or otherwise, the
storage, transport, distribution,
disposal, acquisition, use or
consumption of any of the commodity
specified in clause 3 shall require the
prior concurrence of the Central
Government."
19. From perusal of the provisions
contained in Section 6A of the E.C. Act and the
Clauses 3 and 5 of the Removal of (Licensing
Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement
Restrictions) On Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002
as well as the respondents have not controverted
Patna High Court CWJC No.6108 of 2017 dt.14-02-2025
the specific contention mentioned in paragraph
Nos. 28 to 32 of the Writ petition as stated supra
and the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench passed
in CWJC No. 732 of 2022 squarely applies to this
case, this Court is of the considered view that the
Show Cause Notice dated 08.03.2016 (Annexure-2)
and the entire proceedings of Revenue
Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 2015-16 are not
sustainable in law.
20. Accordingly, the show cause notice
dated 08.03.2016 (Annexure-2) and the entire
proceedings of Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 9
of 2015-16 are quashed.
21. In the result, this Writ petition is
allowed.
22. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.03.2025
Transmission Date
