~^ IN TiIE JIIGH^OURT QF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. -3<r"fc-9/2001 PETITIONER ^ ••-y'" RESPONDENTS ^^y^ •-y-y\^'' ^yyy ^ , " M/sMaaju Agro Private Limited Exports and Imports'Rice Processing Plant; Plot No. 1, Bhanpuri Industrial Estate, Infront of Vyas Talab, Rai-pur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department of Food & Civil Supplie; Raipur (C.G.) ..••"'kS^ 2- The Collector Durg, ;'.-<\^"" Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2, The Inspector, Food & Civil Supplies, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) V. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA . 1. Particulars o£. / .^ :t' ^. HIOH COURT OF GHHATTiSGWH AT B1LASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Msshra Writ Petitson No. 2001 PETSTiONER RESPONDENTS Versus Mfe Manju Aaro Privat& Limited Exports and imports Rice Processing Plant The Stete of Chhaffisgarh and othere. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsei for the petitloner. Shri A|ay Dwrivedi, Depiliy Govt. Advocate for ths State/respondents. VRIT PETiTiON UNDERARTICLE 226327 OF THE CGNSTiTUTiON OF ORAL (19.10.2Q10) Chaitenge i" this wrtt petition ss to the order passed by frse Specsal Judgs, Raipur (EC Act, on 78' August, 2001 parfy aSlowing A® criminal ttie order of of rice Rs. 35,000?'- by ttie Cotlector. Durg on 24-08-200). (2) Leamed counsel for fte petttioner wouid subrnit ttie Cotlector, Dyrg as weii as e aH»ilateGourt have r'Qt properiy appreciated the facts of frie case and ths defence raised by the petitloner ttiat the suuject rice was transported making of Levy and ftat fte petitioner has not coTimitted violation of ttie Brovisions conta'ned in Chhaffisaarh Procurement of Rlc& (Levy) Order 1970 under Section 3/7 of Ihe C-ommodffins Act, 1955. (3) C-ounseS for ttie respsndente-State wouiy submit Siat uie Coltector as we!i as th& ieamed Speciaj Judge have apprwi-ated ttse facte of Sie in •ts proper prQspect've and have concyrrently th-at ttie has the provlsions of the Lew order. He woutd submit that toe wi< uetition is not niainteinabte. ^ (4) On penjsal uf the documents annexed wNh the writ petifiun jt wouid appear that the Competent Auttiority of Coliector, Durg as wei! as the Specia! Judge have recorded concurrent findings ttsat ttie has viofated the prov'sions of tfie Levy order by transporting &se subject ric-e withouf mafdns payment of Levy as required under dause 3(5) of tti®Levy Ordsr, 1970. (t has found that when the subject vehteie was and necessary documents were sought for, the driver unable to produce receipt of payment of Levy. St that fte petiSloner subsequenfly produce the Xerox copy of the receipt In proof of payment of Levy and on ttie of said ctocument the -Speciai Court has reduced ttss amoynt of confisc-ation from Rs.35,WO/- to 25.QCB!-. Under the Levy order flie requirement is to produce ttis of payment of Levy when it is demanded an-d it shouM ba ava'iabte wth the driver or the person ander whose instrucfions the transportatio" ofthe rice is conducted. Admitted'y, as has been found by the Gollector, ftat no receipt of paynent of Levy was produced at fte time of inspection of ttie vehicle. (5) !n view of the above, thls Court not found any ili^a'Hy in ths impugned order ^assed by She teamed Coiiector as we!l as tiie Specia! Judae. W'l :ven otherwtse against an order by ttie Special Judge in under Sectlon 6-C ofttie Essentla! C-ommodtties Act, 1955, a Crimlnat Re'/isfon under Section 12 A B of the Act, 1955 is mainteinabie, hourevar stnce fte present psffion was fiied in the year 20Q1 and is pendinglsince thereafter.and on merite alse^no iliegaldy is found In the impugned order, ttie Is uismlssed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge !^