Purushottam Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Principle Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies, Bihar, Patna.

Facts

The petitioner, Purushottam Kumar, filed a writ application seeking the release of his truck (DL-1GB-6447) seized along with 351 bags of wheat (185.71 quintals). The seizure occurred on June 6, 2022, following a raid based on a report by the Block Supply Officer, Desari, suspecting the wheat to be subsidized government food grain. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered on June 11, 2022, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (E.C. Act) and Sections 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claims the truck was transporting wheat purchased by Hajipur Roller Floor Mills from M/S Anisha Traders, providing invoices with GST details. A confiscation proceeding under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act was initiated hastily by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional District Magistrate, Vaishali, shortly after the FIR.

Held

The Court held that the confiscation proceedings were initiated in haste, as evidenced by the FIR being lodged five days after the raid and the subsequent swift initiation of confiscation proceedings by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional District Magistrate without waiting for prima facie materials from the investigation. The Court found substantial merit in the petitioner's submission that the vehicle, lying seized for over three months, was losing its roadworthiness and was exposed to theft of valuable parts. Citing the Full Bench judgment in Baleshwar Roy and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar, the Court emphasized that its extraordinary writ powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should be exercised to prevent injustice. The Court concluded that non-exercise of its power would lead to injustice to the petitioner. The Court directed the release of the truck upon the petitioner furnishing a security bond/surety bond (not cash or bank guarantee) equivalent to the vehicle's value, along with an undertaking to produce the vehicle when required, not to encumber it, and to agree to a panchnama. The authorities were given the liberty to take a fresh view on confiscation after adequate opportunity for hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the confiscation proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were vitiated by haste and lack of prima facie material, warranting interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction? 2. Whether the vehicle seized in connection with the alleged offence should be released pending the confiscation proceedings, considering its deteriorating condition and the potential for theft of parts? The petitioner argued that the confiscation proceedings were initiated in haste, without sufficient prima facie material to establish that the wheat was government subsidized. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. The State of Gujarat to highlight the need for timely release of vehicles to prevent depreciation and theft. The petitioner also pointed out that a similar writ petition concerning the foodgrains had been allowed. The respondents, represented by the State, contended that a confiscation case had been instituted and a show cause notice issued, relying on a coordinate bench's decision in Md. Jahangir vs. the State of Bihar, which dismissed a writ petition seeking release of foodgrains.