1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 502/2009 Dinesh Janardhan Rangari ..vs.. The Additional Collector (Essential Commodities) Collectorate, Nagpur and another --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. V. Bhutada, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent-State. CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED :- 9 th December, 2009 1. This writ petition is filed challenging order/ directions dated 02.07.2009 (Annexure P5) issued by respondent no.1- Additional Collector (Essential Commodities, Nagpur). Further direction is sought to release Trucks bearing Nos. MH31 CD 7286 and MH31 CQ 960 without any precondition. Brief facts of the case are as under. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of trucks bearing Nos. MH31 CD 7286 and MH31 CQ 960, which were purchased on loan and sole source of income of the petitioner. On 11.05.2009, respondent no.2 registered crime No. 3022 of 2009 under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 alleging that Blue Kerosene, which is meant for 2 domestic use, was transported by the said trucks, with an intention to sell it unauthorizedly. Respondent no.2 seized the trucks and also Kerosene. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that on 08.06.2009, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner calling upon his explanation as to why the said trucks should not be confiscated in terms of Section 6A of the said Act. In response, petitioner submitted his explanation and requested for release of the trucks. It is further case of the petitioner that he has submitted before respondent no.1 that he is in the business of transport. Both the trucks have been taken on loan and because of seizure of the trucks, his business has come to a standstill resulting in stoppage of his only source of income. 4. On 02.07.2009, respondent no.1 passed the order and confiscated the Kerosene seized by respondent no.2. However, no such order of confiscation was passed in respect of trucks of the petitioner. Respondent no.1 also permitted the release of said trucks. However, respondent no.1 placed a caveat that as a precondition for release of the trucks, the petitioner be asked to furnish an undertaking not to sell or transfer the trucks and also 3 to furnish Bank guarantee of Rs. 11 Lacks towards each truck. Hence, this petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that when the Collector did not confiscate the trucks under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, he has no powers to impose any condition for releasing the vehicle. It is further argued that the conditions imposed by the Collector asking the applicant to furnish Bank guarantee of Rs. 11 Lacks for each truck is not essential in law. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that this writ petition deserves interference. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the annexures to the writ petition. 6. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same may be rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Upon perusal of the impugned order and more particularly operative part of the order, it appears that learned Additional Collector, Nagpur passed the order to release the vehicles on Suprutnama by taking bank guarantee of Rs. 11 Lacks per vehicle from the petitioner. It appears that the 4 petitioner is aggrieved by direction to furnish bank guarantee. I am of the considered view that rest of the conditions, which are imposed while releasing the vehicle, are not required to be upset. However, the condition to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 11 Lacks per truck is onerous. Ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is allowed to furnish solvent surety instead of Bank Guarantee as directed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur, while maintaining remaining part of the order. 8. In view of above, clause 2 of order dated 02.07.2009 is modified. The vehicles in question be released on Suprtunama on furnishing solvent surety by the petitioner. Rest of the order is maintained. With these observations, the writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE kahale