1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6413 OF 2009 Shree Renuka Sugars Limited : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr P R Patil a/w Mr Anilkumar Patil for the Petitioner Mr V S Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 27th August 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. The sugar in question is admittedly belonging to the Petitioner since the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.Gokhale has categorically stated that the said factual position is not being disputed. The said sugar has been seized from the godown of one National Colleteral Management Services Ltd. The Petitioner is a manufacturer from the State of Karnataka. The said sugar has been found in the aforesaid godown which is located in the State of Maharashtra. Suspecting that it is a sugar which has been illegally stored, the officers of the Revenue Department have seized the said sugar 2 which is now lying in the godown of the Petitioner and the 13 trucks which were to be ready for unloading in the said godown have also been seized and that sugar has been kept with the Petitioner. All this exercise has been carried out by the Respondents purporting to exercise powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 11 of the Sugar Control Order, 1966 and the Notification issued by the Central Government under Clause 20. 2. It is the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner has violated the above referred provisions, and therefore, they propose to file a criminal complaint under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is for the authorities to decide what action is to be taken, as it is in their discretion on the basis of the material available to them. 3. The present petition is directed for release of the sugar which has been seized . But what we find is that the essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in respect of such seizure a report has to be made to the Collector of the District and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of the Sugar Control Order, the Collector thereafter may direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him and if he 3 is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the Sugar Control Order, may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized etc. as provided under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. It is further to be noted that if the Collector on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1) is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction. 4. On going through the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act what we find is that after any essential commodity is seized by an authority, the said authority is under obligation to make a report to the Collector as desired under Section 6-A and thereafter the Collector is supposed to make an enquiry as to whether really there is a contravention of the order or not and if he finds that there is a contravention, then he can take further steps viz. confiscation of the said essential commodity. It is submitted by the learned AGP Mr Gokhale that a report has been made to the Collector 4 and the learned counsel for the Petitioner has also stated that the Petitioner has also approached the said Collector. However in spite of that the Collector has not initiated enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and has not taken any decision as contemplated In our view, the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is provided under Section 6-A, and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the above Petition at this stage. We however direct the concerned Collector to make an enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to satisfy him that there is no contravention of any order or any provision of law or that the Petitioner is entitled to get the sugar in question released which has been seized by the Respondents. 5. Under these circumstances since the matter is pending for more than one month, we direct the collector to complete the aforesaid enquiry within a period of four weeks after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner and after hearing the Petitioner on the points which are raised in the above Petition or any other points to satisfy him that the action of of the authorities of seizing the sugar in Maharashtra is illegal. We clarify that we have not dealt with any issue involved in the present Petition on merits. Therefore, the Collector is at liberty to consider each of the points 5 raised by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Collector on 7 th September 2009 and thereafter the Collector shall fix a schedule as per his convenience. The Collector to proceed with reasonable despatch considering the nature of the commodity seized. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the above Petition is disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]