Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Sah vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Food And Consumer Protection Department, Government Of Bi

Held

The Court noted that the writ petition was initially filed with the impression that the seized food grains were still in possession and no auction had been conducted. However, the respondents disclosed that an auction sale had indeed taken place. Although the petitioner's counsel orally challenged the order of sale and sought compensation, the Court found that the prayer for release of seized food grains had become infructuous due to the auction. The Court directed the District Magistrate, Saran, to provide specific information to the petitioner regarding whether samples of the seized food grains were kept and tested according to law, the procedures followed in the auction sale, the amount collected, and the dates of notice publication and auction. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appropriate proceeding challenging the confiscation proceeding, the sale of food grains during the pendency of the case, and to claim compensation, if any, after receiving this information. The District Magistrate was given 30 days to comply with these directions. The writ application was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Raushan Kumar, proprietor of M/s Rohit Traders, challenged the seizure of 184 bags of wheat and 18 bags of rice on May 20, 2017, by the Block Supply Officer, Manjhi, in connection with Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 105 of 2017. The seizure was based on information that a pickup van was carrying wheat with FCI marks and illegal materials. The petitioner claimed he purchased the grains from local agriculturists, maintained proper accounts, and possessed a GST registration. He also challenged the subsequent rejection of his release petition by the SDJM, Saran, and the affirmation of that order by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra. The respondents, including the State and FCI, stated that their stocks were intact. A confiscation proceeding under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated, and the seized food grains were reportedly sold through auction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of wheat and rice, allegedly bearing FCI marks, is justified when the petitioner claims to have purchased them from local agriculturists and possesses valid GST registration and accounted transactions (Section 6A, Essential Commodities Act)? 2. Whether the auction sale of the seized food grains, conducted during the pendency of the release application and revision, is valid, especially in the absence of proper disclosure of the auction procedure and testing of the food grains (Section 6A(2), Essential Commodities Act)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the mere presence of FCI marks on gunny bags does not prove illegal procurement, as bags are reusable. He contended that the seized items were not controlled items and did not belong to FCI. He relied on High Court judgments where release orders were granted during pending Section 6A proceedings and where prosecutions were quashed in similar circumstances. He also argued that the auction sale was conducted improperly and without proper testing of the food grains. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents reiterated the facts leading to the FIR and stated that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief until the matter was decided by a competent court. They confirmed the initiation of a confiscation proceeding and the subsequent auction sale of the seized food grains.