THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29345 of 2011 Date: 14.11.2011 Between : Nagalla Subba Rao … Petitioner and The Joint Collector (CS Wing), Prakasam District, Ongole and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29345 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 27X 7884. The 2nd respondent-Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Darsi, Prakasam District, seized the said vehicle on 7.10.2011 while it was transporting the rice meant for public distribution system. A report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’), was submitted to the 1st respondent-Joint Collector (CS Wing), Prakasam District, and the enquiry is said to be pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application dated 14.10.2011 before the 1st respondent seeking release of the vehicle on furnishing bank guarantee. On consideration of the matter, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings Rc.CS1/6A/181/2011-2, dated 25.10.2011, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.2,83,500/- for release of the vehicle from any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years, pending finalisation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order insisting the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle is not legal. Under the proviso to Section 6-A of the Act, a vehicle, which is liable to be confiscated, may be released on furnishing security for the value of the seized stock. 4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submits that the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act is still pending and since the vehicle itself is liable for confiscation, it cannot be released on the bank guarantee for an amount less than the value of the vehicle. 5. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. 6. When similar issue came up for consideration in W.P.No.28743 of 2011, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Collector of Ganjam and anr. v. Ramesh Chander Pandhi[1] this Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 27.10.2011. 7. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court considered the effect of the second proviso to Section 6-A of the Act and held as follows. “Question is -- whether fine should not exceed the market price of the seized essential commodity or whether it should not exceed the market price of the vehicle. For this purpose, it appears that there is some ambiguity in the section. It is not specifically provided that in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle a fine not exceeding the market price of the vehicle or of the seized essential commodity is to be taken as a measure. Still however, it is difficult to say that the measure of fine is related to the market price of the essential commodity at the date of its seizure. It nowhere provides that fine should not exceed the market price of the essential commodity at the date of seizure of the vehicle. The proviso requires the competent authority to give an option to the owner of such vehicle to pay in lieu of confiscation a fine not exceeding the market price. What is to be confiscated is the vehicle and, therefore, the measure of fine would be relatable to the market price of the vehicle at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle. This would also be consistent with the scheme of Section 7 which provides for levy of penalty. It empowers the court trying the criminal case to pass an order forfeiting to the Government any property in respect of which the order under Section 3 has been contravened. It also empowers forfeiture to the Government of any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and in addition any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity. Therefore, not only the essential commodity which is seized is to be forfeited, but the vehicle also could be forfeited to the Government. Hence, the measure of fine which is required to be levied in lieu of confiscation under the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) would be relatable to the market price of the vehicle and not of the seized essential commodity. And, the fine amount in lieu of confiscation is not to exceed the market price of the vehicle on the date of seizure of the essential commodity. That is to say, the limit of such fine would be up to the market price of the vehicle on the relevant date and it is within the discretion of the competent authority to fix such reasonable amount considering the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the said judgment of this Court in W.P.No.28743 of 2011, dated 27.10.2011, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the valuation should be restricted to the value of the seized stock. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 14.11.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29345 of 2011 14.11.2011 (Msr) [1][1] AIR 2009 SC 1850