Sri Nihar Ranjan Saha vs. The State Of Tripura And 5 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy and that the reliefs sought cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Regarding the search and seizure, the Court noted that a search without a warrant is permissible where there is reasonable suspicion, and the investigation officer can seize suspected contraband. The Court observed that an FIR had been registered, and the procedure contemplated under law needs to be followed. The Court also highlighted that the petitioner had not provided specific details regarding batch numbers, waybills, or invoices of the seized stock. Furthermore, the trade license that had expired on 31.03.2024 pertained to a grocery shop (retail store), and the petitioner had not produced any godown license, nor did the FSSAI registration certificate relate to a godown. The Court also noted that the copy of the complaint addressed to the SDM lacked acknowledgement of service. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the case fails and is liable to be dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Nihar Ranjan Saha, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the actions of the respondents, including a search and seizure conducted on his godown on October 4, 2024, by respondent no. 6, assisted by respondents no. 3 and 5. The petitioner alleges that his son's signature was obtained on blank sheets and that no seizure memo was created. The petitioner sought the return of confiscated Dabur Mritsanjivani cartons. He subsequently filed an FIR against respondent no. 6 on October 8, 2024, and notified the SP, Dhalai on October 9, 2024. A protest representation was also filed with the S.D.M., Gandachara on November 8, 2024. The petitioner sought directions for investigation of the FIR and the search and seizure, and for the return of seized goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to investigate the FIR dated 08.10.2024 and the letter to SP (Dhalai Tripura) dated 09.10.2024 in accordance with law? (Question of law) 2. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued against respondent no. 6 for not investigating the matter in connection with the search and seizure on 04.10.2024 in accordance with law? (Question of law) 3. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued against respondent no. 4 directing him to perform his duty under Chapter XIII of BNSS and submit the investigation done till date? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the search and seizure were conducted without a search warrant, and his son's signature was obtained on blank sheets. He sought directions for the investigation of the FIR and the actions of the investigating officer, and the return of seized goods. The petitioner also sought the court's intervention to ensure the proper performance of duties by respondent no. 4. Revenue/State's Contentions: The respondents argued that a search without a warrant is permissible where there is reasonable suspicion. They also contended that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy and that the reliefs sought cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents pointed out that the petitioner's trade license had expired and that the documentation provided did not pertain to the godown.