Ram Chandra Sah vs State of Bihar and Others

Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.—An order dated 6.8.2005 was passed in confiscation case No. 17/97-98 Collector, Sheohar by which it was noted that the petitioner submits that even if cost of seized commodities along with interest is not returned to him meaning thereby that the order of confiscation would stand, notwithstanding admitted acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case in which wheal and kerosene oil was seized his licence would be restored. On behalf of the respondents State counter affidavit has been filed.

Heard the parties.

It appears that the petitioner is a dealer holding license under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order and was operating under the Public Distribution System. An inspection was conducted in a shop and certain quantities of wheat and kerosene were seized and a case was instituted for an offence punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, in respect of the seized commodities as envisaged u/s 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. A report was made to the Collector, Sheoher who initialed the present confiscation proceedings being confiscation case No. 17/97-98. During pendency of the confiscation case, in the criminal trial the petitioner was acquitted. Consequent to his acquittal he filed an application in terms of Section 6C(2) E.C. Act, for either return of the goods or for payment of price thereof along with interest as statutorily provided. In the meanwhile because of pendency of the criminal case the license of the petitioner was also revoked. It may be mentioned that the licencing authority is the Sub-Divisional Officer and not the Collector. Form the Impugned Order it is clear that when the confiscation matter was taken up, consequent to the acquittal of the petitioner, the Collector was mandatorily required by law in terms of Section 6C(2) of the Act to pass an order in terms thereof directing for the return of the goods and/or if that was not possible for payment of money value along with interest thereof. The said section gives no discretion to the Collector in this regard. The obligation cast on the Collector is in mandatory terms and has to be exercised by him suo moto. The petitioner did not even have to make a prayer for the same. It is by operation of law itself that the relief had to be granted to the petitioner.

The manner in which the Collector has recorded the order it is apparent that using the administrative position, he has tried to rescue the State from the financial obligation by hitting upon a compromise, that is, noting that the petitioner may not seek final order in terms of Section 6C(2) but his license would be restored by the Sub-Divisional Officer. To this Court it is clear that this is nothing but a blackmail by a statutory authority exercising statutory functions which does not behold good in a democratic society governed by rule of law. If the law does not give any discretion to the Collector, the Collector could not have used his authority to force and impose on illegal consequences on the petitioner. I, therefore have no option but to set aside that apart of the order which noted that the petitioner has not asked for passing of final orders with regard to confiscation matter. Collector is bound to pass an order and that too in terms of Section 6C(2) of the Act. Let a writ mandates (of mandamus?) be issued to the Collector to pass an order in terms of Section 6C(2) of the Act, within a period of one month from the production of copy of this order. The rest of the order of Collector is not interfered with. This writ application is accordingly, dismissed.