IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 4888 of 2009 Ranjeet Kumar, son of late Bishwanath Sah, Resident of Rambag Road, P S - Mithanpura, District - Muzaffarpur - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Collector, Muzaffarpur - Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s N K Agrawal, Sr Advocate & Rajesh Mohan, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Rakesh Kr Singh, JC to SC XX *** 3 30.04.2009 The Court is amazed at the casual manner in which the citizen’s property are dealt with by supposedly senior responsible officers of the State. From petitioner’s premises, 63 bags of wheat and 43 bags of rice, each containing 50 Kgs, was seized on 23.02.2008 at about 9.30 pm. Petitioner’s shop is located at Mithanpura in Muzaffarpur Town. The ground for alleged seizure was that on inspection, it was found that the bags bore marking of Food Corporation of India and were machine stitched. It was, accordingly, alleged that wheat of FCI was being misappropriated for wrongful gains by sale in black market. Seizure being effected, a report thereof in terms of Section 6A of EC Act was forwarded to the Collector, Muzaffarpur on basis whereof Confiscation Case No 3 of 2008-2009 was instituted and notices issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 6B of the EC Act. In the meantime, petitioner apparently moved this Court for release of the seized wheat and rice by filing CrWJC No 538 of 2008 which was disposed of on 2 19.09.2008 directing release of wheat and rice in favour of petitioner subject to the criminal case and confiscation proceedings but it seems by the time the order was communicated, by an interim order, the Collector, Muzaffarpur had already ordered for sale and the stocks of wheat and rice were sold and the money deposited in Government Treasury. Petitioner then filed show cause clearly stating that the wheat and rice that was seized was his stocks. They were not FCI wheat and rice. Nowhere did FCI claim any such stocks. Machine stitching is done by private individuals as well. FCI bags are available in bundles in the market. Collector directed petitioner to submit evidence in support of his claim. Petitioner did not do so and sought time. Time was refused and by the impugned order dated 13.12.2008, the Collector passed orders for confiscation which is challenged before this Court. Shri N K Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire exercise right from culminating in the confiscation order has been wholly without jurisdiction. He submits that so far as wheat and rice are concerned, there is neither any storage restriction nor any movement restriction nor any licensing requirement under any order made under the Essential Commodities Act. He further submits that there is no statutory price fixation under Essential Commodities Act in relation to wheat and rice and that being so, there is no question of black marketing of wheat and rice as held by this Court as far back as in 1982 PLJR 304 in Pritamlal Yadav & Others -Versus- State of Bihar & Others. He further submits 3 that before the Collector can assume jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceeding or order confiscation, it is incumbent upon him to find that any provision of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act is violated in absence whereof the very initiation of the proceedings becomes wholly without jurisdiction and the order of confiscation is also without jurisdiction. He further submits that a reference to the order in question would show that Collector has not given any finding with regard to violation of any provision of any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act. He has acted merely on suspicion and surmises. It is further submitted that a first information report is merely an allegation but it is not known under what jurisprudence, the learned Collector has treated the first information report as a gospel truth for this Court has more than a decade back held that any ipse dixit stated by the State cannot be taken to be gospel truth and before a person is required to defend his case, it is for the State to establish by cogent materials its case. Here, the Collector had accepted the first information report as a gospel truth and treated it as a judgment of petitioner’s criminal acts. That is not permissible or sustainable in law. Having heard the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. A bare perusal of the order shows a very dispensing trend. Valuable property of petitioner is being confiscated in such a casual manner. The right to initiate a confiscation proceeding under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is dependent on a prima facie 4 finding of a violation of any provision of any Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities. The entire ordersheet of the Court of Collector has been annexed. At no point of time has the Collector even bothered to look as to what order and in what manner which order is being violated. The entire proceeding started on suspicion of black-marketing. When there being no statutory price fixation for sale of wheat and rice under any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, still allegation of black marketing is made. That is not sustainable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pritamlal Yadav & Others (supra). That is not all. Collector gives a finding that on basis of allegations in the first information report, which he takes to be the gospel truth against all canons of justice and all rule of law, he holds the wheat and rice to be an FCI wheat. If it is FCI wheat then at best it could be a case of theft of FCI wheat. That is not an offence under Essential Commodities Act for which Collector has jurisdiction to confiscate. The tragedy is that even though it has been over one year since the case was instituted, FCI has not led any claim in respect of the wheat in question. Still the Collector treats it to be FCI wheat. The person, whose property it is alleged to be stolen, is not laying his claim, but the learned Collector has chosen to lodge a case on their behalf. This is another curious aspect contrary to the rule of law. In my view, virtually all these matters stand concluded by judgment of Justice B N Agrawal, as he then was, speaking for Division Bench in the case of Dharmdeo Yadav & Another -Versus- State of Bihar & Others since reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 169 where 5 the jurisdiction of the Collector, in such matters, have been elaborately discussed and if one reads the said judgment, it could be found that every part of the judgment has been flagrantly violated by the Collector in the present proceedings. In nutshell, in the entire proceedings, there is no reference to any order or any provision of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act which could be said to have been violated. Bald, vague allegations of black marketing do not get us anywhere especially when we are dealing with property rights of citizens. Article- 300 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that no person can be deprived of his property except by procedure established by law. Here, petitioner has been deprived of his property without authority of law because the power under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act could only be exercised on certain facts being there. Those facts not being there nor having been found to be there, the exercise was clear abuse of process of Court and cannot be sustained. The order of confiscation, therefore, is set aside. The Collector, Muzaffarpur is now directed to act in terms of Section 6C and there being no statutory price fixed for wheat and rice in terms of Section 3 (3B) of the Act, the Collector would be bound to pay the petitioner the market price of the wheat and rice on the day when the wheat and rice were sold irrespective of the price of the wheat and rice on which it was sold and the amount deposited in the Government Treasury. Apart from it, the petitioner would be entitled to the statutory interest as provided under Section 6C (2) of the Essential Commodities 6 Act. The impugned order is set aside. Writ application is allowed. The order of this Court must be complied with within 30 days from the time the certified copy thereof is filed before the Collector, Muzaffarpur. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)