IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1037 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR,MUZAFFARPUR ………………………….RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS. Versus RANJEET KUMAR, SON OF LATE BISHWANATH SAH, RESIDENT OF RAMBAG, ROAD, P.S.MITHANPURA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR………………………..PETITIONER/RESPO NDENT. ----------- For the State:- Sri Lakmesh Marvind, AC to SC 20. For the Respondent:- Sri Rajesh Mohan, Advocate, Sri Sajal K.Sinha,Advocate. ----------- 5. 07.02.2011. The present L.P.A. has been filed to set aside the judgement an order dated 30.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.4888 of 2009. According to the appellants 63 bags of wheat and 43 bags of rice, each containing 50 K.G. was seized on 23.2.2008 from the respondent’s premises. It is contended that a report thereof in terms of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act(E.C.Act for short) was forwarded to the Collector, Muzaffarpur on the basis whereof Confiscation Case No.3 of 2008-2009 was instituted and notices issued to the respondent in terms of Section 6B of the EC Act. In the meantime, respondent moved this Court for release of the seized wheat and rice by filing Cr.W.C.J. No.538 of 2008 which was disposed of on 19.9.2008 2 directing release of wheat and rice in favour of respondent subject to the criminal case and confiscation proceedings but it seems by the time the order was communicated, by an interim order, the Collector, Muzaffarpur had already ordered for sale and the stock of wheat and rice were sold and the money deposited in Government Treasury. Respondent then filed show cause clearly stating that the wheat and rice that was seized was his stocks. It is contended that FCI bags are available in bundles in the market. Collector directed respondent to submit evidence in support of his claim. Respondent did not do so and sought time. Time was refused and by the impugned order dated 13.12.2008, the Collector passed orders for confiscation which was challenged before this Court. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the entire exercise right from seizure which was culminating in the confiscation order has been wholly without jurisdiction. He submits that so far as wheat and rice are concerned, there is neither any storage restriction nor any movement 3 restriction nor any licensing requirement under any order made under the Essential Commodities Act. He further submits that there is no statutory price fixation under Essential Commodities Act in relation to wheat and rice and that being so, there is no question of black marketing of wheat and rice as held by this Court as far back as in 1982 PLJR 304 in Pritamlal Yadav & Others-Versus- State of Bihar and others. He further submits that before the Collector can assume jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceeding or order confiscation, it is incumbent upon him to find that any provision of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was violated, in absence whereof the very initiation of the proceedings becomes wholly without jurisdiction and the order of confiscation is also without jurisdiction. He further submits that a reference to the order in question would show that Collector has not given any finding with regard to violation of any provision of any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act. It is further submitted that a first information report is 4 merely an allegation but it is not known under what jurisprudence, the learned Collector has treated the first information report as a gospel truth, for, this Court has more than a decade back held that any ipse dixit stated by the State cannot be taken to be gospel truth and before a person is required to defend his case, it is for the State to establish by cogent materials its case. Here, the Collector had accepted the first information report as a gospel truth and treated it as a judgement on respondent’s criminal acts. That is not permissible or sustainable in law. A bare perusal of the order shows a very dispensing trend. Valuable property of petitioner was being confiscated in such a casual manner. The right to initiate a confiscation proceeding under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is dependent on a prima facie finding of a violation of any provision of any Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities. At no point of time has the Collector even bothered to look as to what order and in what manner which order is being violated. The entire 5 proceeding started on suspicion of black- marketing. In nutshell, in the entire proceedings, there is no reference to any order or any provision of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act which could be said to have been violated. Bald, vague allegations of black marketing do not get us anywhere especially when we are dealing with properly rights of citizens. Article 300 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that no person can be deprived of his property except by procedure established by law. Here, respondent has been deprived by his property without authority of law because the power under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act could only be exercised on certain facts being there. Those facts not being there nor having been found to be there, the exercise was clear abuse of process of Court and cannot be sustained. The order of confiscation, therefore, is set aside. The Collector, Muzaffarpur is now directed to act in terms of Section 6C and there being no statutory price fixed for wheat and rice in terms of Section 3 (3B)of 6 the Act, the Collector would be found to pay the respondent the market price of the wheat and rice on the day the commodities were sold irrespective of the price of the wheat and rice on which it was sold and the amount deposited in the Government Treasury. In the result, we dismiss the petition in the terms indicated above. B.Kr. ( T.Meena Kumari,J. ) ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)