IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7178 of 2004 RAM PRAVESH BHAGAT son of Shri Singheshwar Bhagat R/o Hatia, Gachhi at Simri Bakhtiarpur, P.S. Simri, Bkhatiarpur, District Saharsa. …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, Saharsa. 3. Sub Division Officer, Saharsa 4 .District Supply Officer, Saharsa 5. Anchal Adhikari Simri Bakhtiarpur, District SAharsa. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. N.A. Shamsi, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Md. Shahab Khalid, A.C. to S.C-III -------- 4 06.04.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondent District Collector for final disposal of Supply Case No. 21/94-2000 (Ram Pravesh Bhagat Vs. The State of Bihar). 3. It is submitted that in view of institution of a criminal case vide Simri Bakhtiarpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 1982 under section 7 of the E.C. Act, certain articles belonging to the petitioner were seized and were subsequently confiscated by the order passed in confiscation Case No. 50/82-83/ 34/82. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was originally convicted in the aforesaid criminal case, but subsequently he has been acquitted by this Court by a judgment and order dated 24th February, 1998 passed in Cri. Appeal No. 264 of 1987. In view of acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case, he filed the aforesaid Supply . Case No. 2 21 of 1999-2000 before the respondent District Collector, Saharsa for release of confiscated articles or in alternative refund the sale proceeds of the confiscated articles , but the said case is not being disposed of by the respondent District Collector for one reason or other. The order sheet of aforesaid Supply Case No. 21 of 1999-2000 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. From the perusal of which, it appears that right from 24.5.1999 till 31.5.2004, the matter was adjourned on one pretext or other and claim of the petitioner has not been adjudicated. 5. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer made in the petition, has placed his reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5, but he has fairly conceded that he has no latest instruction about the status of aforesaid Supply Case no. 21 of 1999-2000. 6. After hearing the parties and on consideration of materials available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that respondent District Collector was under legal obligation to take the aforesaid Supply case No. 21 of 1999- 2000 to its logical conclusion. He has no business to keep the matter pending for such a long time. Apparently, now the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case lodged against him by a judgment and order of this Court, as referred to above. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is 3 allowed. The respondent District Collector is hereby directed to dispose of the Supply Case No. 21 of 1999-2000 at an early date on its own merit in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. No costs. Rahman/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)