Anil Saw vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secty. Food And Consumer Protection Dept. Govt. Of Bihar.

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Saw, proprietor of M/s. Shivam Traders, filed a writ petition seeking the release of 314.63 kg of Arwa Rice and 1 quintal of wheat seized in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 561 of 2022. The seizure occurred on November 8, 2022, during a raid conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Patna Sadar, based on secret information about alleged illegal food grains stored in a godown. The petitioner claims he is not a PDS dealer and deals in food grains purchased from farmers and traders in the open market. He asserts the seized food grains are not control items and that Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is not attracted. The petitioner also argues the food grains are perishable and should be released provisionally. The State contended that statutory remedies exist for the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate and that confiscation proceedings have commenced.

Held

The Court held that the respondents failed to convince it that the seized food grains were government-subsidized, which would be necessary for confiscation. The Court found that the confiscation proceedings were initiated in haste without prima facie materials and that the order for sale of seized articles was passed without adhering to the provisions of Section 6-A(4) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as there was no clear indication of speedy and natural decay. The Court reiterated the Full Bench's view in Baleshwar Roy that the High Court's powers under Article 226 cannot be curtailed and that intervention is permissible when procedures are flouted and gross injustice is likely. Unlike in the Md. Jahangir case, the present facts showed a procedural violation. The Court noted the State's stand in a similar matter (M/S Anisha Traders) where it did not object to release subject to adequate security. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the food grains upon the petitioner furnishing adequate security/surety (not cash or bank guarantee) to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Patna, within one week, along with an undertaking to abide by reasonable conditions and not to question the seizure or identification in future proceedings. The authorities were also permitted to take a fresh view on confiscation after affording the petitioner a hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized food grains, consisting of rice and wheat, are subject to control under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, making their storage and alleged sale in the black market a violation attracting Section 7 of the Act? (Question of law turning on Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and relevant notifications). 2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the release of seized food grains during the pendency of confiscation proceedings, especially when the petitioner claims lawful business dealings and the items are perishable? (Question of law turning on Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he is a registered GST dealer, not a PDS dealer, and deals in food grains purchased legitimately from farmers and traders. He relied on a Ministry notification dated February 15, 2002, to assert that rice and wheat are not control items. He emphasized the perishable nature of the goods and the hardship caused by their continued seizure. He also cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Baleshwar Roy, to support the High Court's power to intervene under Article 226 and direct release, even pending confiscation, if gross injustice is likely. He also pointed to a co-ordinate bench's order in M/S Anisha Traders for similar relief. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that statutory provisions exist for the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate for release and that confiscation proceedings have already been initiated. They submitted a counter-affidavit from the Assistant District Supply Officer, Patna Sadar.