R. Ramasamy vs The District Collector and The Inspector, CS CID

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that 64 bags of rice, which belonged to one Muthusamy was seized by the

second respondent, on 20.7.1998, from Thulukkanthottathu Salai, Salapalayam, Annur, alleging that the goods belonged to the petitioner. The

petitioner was also arrested on the same day and after being released on bail, the petitioner was issued with Section 6-B notice by the first

respondent. Though the petitioner had been represented by a counsel before the first respondent during the Section 6A enquiry, the 1st respondent

had passed the order confiscating the entire goods and had given sanction order for prosecution against the petitioner by his proceedings in

Na.Ka.5531/98/K3, dated 27.10.1998, which has been challenged before this Court by way of the present writ petition.

The claim of the petitioner is that the seized rice does not belong to him and that the petitioner was dealing with the rice on behalf of the small

traders only as a commission agent and that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent only on a misconception.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that as against the impugned order passed by the respondent, a

statutory appeal is available to the petitioner, u/s 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act,

1955, reads as follows:

6-C. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation u/s 6-A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of

such order, appeal to the State Government concerned and the State Government shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard,

pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against.

(2) Where an order u/s 6-A is modified or annulled by the State Government, or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the

order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made u/s 6-A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible

for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, such persons shall, except as provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A, be paid the

price therefore as if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of the

essential commodity and such price shall be determined -

(i) in the case of food grains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3-B) of Section 3;

(ii) in the case of sugar, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3-C) of Section 3 ; and

(iii) in the case of any other essential commodity, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 3.

However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that at the time of the filing of the writ petition, the appellate authority

had not been designated, as provided under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court, by way of filing the present writ petition,

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that at present the District Court, Coimbatore, has been designated as the

appellate forum, u/s 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to hear and decide the appeals.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the designated appellate authority,

as provided under the law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal being filed, the appellate

authority is expected to dispose of the same expeditiously.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.