y HIGHCOURTPF_CHHATTSSGARH:BII-ASPUR AFR \^- Wr}t_PetitioiiICLNo._6314.of.2008 Petiiloners 1) Atuj Bagga, S/o. Shri Harbansh LaS Bagga, aged about 30 years, through Power of Attorney, Saurabh Bagga, S/o. -Sh" Harbansh Lai Bagga, aged about 24 years, R/o, Bagbhra, Tahsi! & District Mahasamund (CG)« Respondents 2) Rashmi Bagga, VV/o. Atui Bagga, through Power of Attorn©ySaurabh Bagga, S/o. Shri Harbansh Lai Bagga,aQed about 24 years, R/o. Bagbahra, Tahsi! & Djstrlct Mahasamund' (CG}. Versys 1. State of Chhattisgarh, throygh Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. 8hawan,Raipur (CG).. 2. Syperintendent of Poilce, Mahasamund, DJstrict Mahasamund (CG). 3. Station House Ofttcer, PoSlce Station Bagbahra, Dlstrlct Nahasamund (CQ). 4. Station House Offlcer, Poiice Station Mahasamund, Djstrict-Mahasarrtund (CG). 5. C.G. State CiviS Suppltes Corporation Ljmtted«, through the yanaging Dlrector, Bal Ashram Parisar, Kachahari Chowk Raipur, Districl Ralpur (CG). 6. Distrlct Manager, CG. State Clvil Syppjles Corporatlon Umlted, Dtetrict Mahasamund (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitutlon of Sndia) SB: Hon'bie Nir. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Ms« Jain, counsei 'for the petitioners. Mr. AJok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4/State. Mr. NX, Vyas, counsel for the respondents'sMo^S and 6/Civit . SuppJles Corporatlon. &...,.,. ^ 2.- IBNNI^: 2) 3) 4) ^ QRAL (Passed on this 2nd day of December, Wlth consent of learned counsei appe.aring tbr'the parties,the matter is heard finalSy. The petitioners have chaiienged the order 7-8-2008 u^nnexure RM) passed by the Dlsirlct Vanager, Chhattisgarh Clvii SuppSies Corporatlon. ttd., Mahasamynd, whereby the trucks bsaring reaistratlon No. CG 04 E 3655, CG 04 CV CG 04 BD 6155, CG04 DB 6455, CG 04 HA 8955 and CG 04 J 8455 (hereinafter referred to as "petltlon scheduSe trycks') have detalned ilSegaSly and the petltloners a direction 'to .the respondents to release the petltion schedule trucks detained by the .respondents and compensation as well as damage. to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. The facts, in nytshell, as projected by the petitloners are that the petltjoners are engaged in transportatlon buslness in the name and style of Bagga Transport at Bagbahra^ The petitloner No.1 Is the owner of trucks bearing regjstration No. CG 04 E 3655, CG 04 CV 3955, CG 04 BD 6155, CG04 DB 6455 and CG 04 J 8455. The petitloner No«2is the owner oftruck bearing registration No. CG 04 HA .8955. The pststion scheduis trucks were detained by the respondent authoritles wlthout regisfratlon of any cri.mjnal case and withoyt there being any offence regarding of the petjtion scheduie trucks . Shri Prateek Sharrrsa with Ms. Sunlta Jaln, Searned coyaisei appearing for the petitloners submits the detentlon of the petltlon scheduie trucks Is liiegal, without any aythorlty ofiaw, smack of hlgh-handedness and arbitrariness on the part of the p. ^g^..^..i,., -3- \1^ respondent authorlties. Thus, the petition schedute trucks may be dlrected to' be released v^lth exemplary cost payable to the petitioners. 5) Shri Alok Bakshi, ieamed counseS appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4/State sybmits that the petition scheduie trucks have been detained by the police authorities on the basls of the dated 7-8-2008 (Annexure R/1) of the respondent No.6. it is admitted that there was first informatlon report Sodged by the respondent No5 In respect of other 42 trucks which were on account of non-supply of food grains under pubSic dlstribution • system to' the piaces of thelr destlnation. VVIth regard to the petltlon schedule trucks, jt stated in the that the petltlon schedule trucks may be detained for recovery of loss to the respondents No. 5 and 6/CjviS Suppiles Corporation, 6) Shrl NX. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5 S/Clvil SuppUes Corporation sybmlts that the respondents No, 5 and 6 have exerclsed frieir power under Ciause 13.7 of the Notlce Inviting Tender (for short, "NIT") dated 15-3-2007, v^hereln it is provlded that the Corporation recover loss fronn movabie and immovabie propertles of frie transporter. Though, the petition schsduie trucks ars not engaged in the transportation of food gralns, but the same were detalned to recover Soss whlch runs Srato severai !acs of rupees. Learned courisel further submits that the petitloners have been notlced t^ith regard to the detention of the petltion schedule trucks. 7) I have heard Searned counse! appearing for the parties, perused the pleadlngs and documents thereto» !n order to appreciate the power of the respondents No< 5 6/Civi! Supplies ^-' 'T- -\ kKN»' h- 8) -Mr ^ c. Corporatlon, It is necessary to quote Clause 13.7 of the NIT which as under: "13.7 ^R4gr145dl' ^t ^ ^ ftNR?[ ?TraT ^yn^ ^- wwr •:yT^n 'cFT . <|>do^ '^?M 'y"? 'W^ TR q^|<-t| 3:)|q^cp '^ { ^^[ c^[ W?iT ^cT "^icj^j ^ 'f^fT ^ ^T?^ '^t ^ft 'NTNt ^T TT^T^t ^t '^iKft t 'at 'uf^qg^c^rif c^ R^}^ <{^|€-^cp '4>f4al^'i CF~^" '^' 1?NtSTT[ 'OTg"^ '^1 •^^RHTf 'q^ f^ ^rr^n '^ iri^q^^^ai ^t ^r?f—3T^[^f^" '^ ^-RT[[i cp f^" f?pp7 ^qTT^ ^TI !...„,,.„,..../' On perusal of Clause 13.7 of the NIT, It js- evident that lo the event the food gralns do not reach to the destinatlori or there is some mis-handlina or Irreguiarity, a crlniinal case can be reglstered agalnst the transporter and the trucks invotved therein may be seized. The secorad part of the •clause whlch provides fbr attachlng movabie and Jmmovable property to reco^ver losscannot be done in the manner as jt has been done in the case,. jt is weii settled principle of iaw that In case of recovsry of joss, there is a proper procedyre; firstly after hearing the concemed partiies, the quantum of loss/damage be assessed/deterniined thereafter the process of recovery wouid start, In accordance with la^v, The manner arad ffaethod adopted by the respondents No. 5 and S is iilegal. There was no assessment of loss or affordlng an opportunity of hearing to the petitloners. The Corporation has stralghi-away proceeded to recover the loss by detainlng the petltion scheduie trucks and as such Is no difficuity In hoiding that the detentlon of the petltlon schsduie ta'ycks whlch \¥ere not involved in the transportation of the food grasns is iliegai. The respondents No. 5 and 6 themselvss have decided the !oss v/rthout affording any opportunifry of hearing to the ^ '^ M: ii 'i. 1 %mw^sy^ ^ £s ^ -t. '^:'"4'^^ - /• 10) 11) 12) •13) '^- Raju petltloners and passed the. result thereon by recommending the police authoritles to detain the petltion.schedyle trucks, Even the poiice aythoritjes have aiso' hastened to take action m the petition scheduie trucks vvlthout verifying the authorl'fy of the Corporation whlle recommendlng the' poiice authorrlles for decalning the petltion schedule trycks< It Is v^eil.settled principie of la\¥that no person can be condemned wlthout affordlng an opportynliy of hearing to hlm. The principie of naturai justice is based on two plilars: (1) nobody shall be condemned ¥4thouthearing; and (ii) nobodv shall be a judge In hjs ovffl cause (Sae: State of UP Vs. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava aodothers'). For the reasons nfientlonied hereinabo1ve, the order dated. 7-8M-2008 (Annexure R/1) is quashed» The petition schedule trucks bearing registratlon No. CG 04 E 3655, CG 04 CV CG 04 BD 6155, CG04 DB 6455, CG 04 HA 8955 and CG 04 J 8455 be reieassd forthwith, If the petitloners have suffered anv ioss on accoynt of detention of the petltlon schedyie trucks , the are at iiberiy to take appropriate steps for compensation and damages under the provisions of iaw. The obsea'vatlons made hereinabove shali not ^ome in the of consideration of other matters pendjng against the petitloners, if any. Accordlngly the petltion is aliowed wlth cost quantified to be Rs.15,000/-.payable bythe respondents No. 5 and 6. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^\ ''(2006)3SCC2.76CP-B).