IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15678 of 2009 Date of decision: 15th October, 2009 M/s Rajiv Enterprises … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order (Annexure P-4) dated 6th October, 2009. A perusal of order (Annexure P-4) reveals that District Collector, Amritsar passed an order on 6th October, 2009 under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) to confiscate 3650 quintals of sugar, which was found in possession of the petitioner. On the same day, another order was passed and 6311 quintals of sugar found in godown of the petitioner was also confiscated. The petitioner is aggrieved against these orders of confiscation. Notice of motion was issued. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab, appearing for the State, submits that under Section 6-C of the Act, right of appeal vests in Civil Writ Petitions No.15678 of 2009 the petitioner and petitioner cannot directly approach this Court without approaching the appellate authority. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, appearing for the petitioner, states that the goods confiscated have been sold in auction. He further states that the goods have been sold at a very low price and a financial loss has been caused to the petitioner. He further contends that M/s Rajiv Enterprises is a partnership firm having two partners, namely Smt.Sudarshan Munjal and Rajiv Kumar Munjal. Smt.Sudarshan Munjal is an 80 years old lady and a sleeping partner. Rajiv Kumar Munjal was arrested in the FIR, which was registered against him under the Act. Two separate FIRs were registered against the petitioner, bearing FIR No.139 dated 22.09.2009 and 140 dated 23.09.2009 for having violated the conditions of sugar control order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rajiv Kumar Munjal was arrested and was in Ludhiana jail, therefore, the service could not be effected upon him to satisfy the Collector that confiscation of goods is not warranted. Be that as it may, since the right of appeal exists in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, at first instance, ought to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner may raise all arguments, available to him, assailing the order of confiscation. In case, the appeal is filed on or before 23rd October, 2009, the same shall be decided expeditiously. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab appearing for the State, submits that the goods confiscated have already been put to auction and the State has received an amount of Rs.2 crore and 11 lakh. Therefore, auction purchasers, being the third party, are likely to suffer. In these circumstances, it is ordered that if petitioner files an appeal, same shall be decided within a period of 15 days by the appellate authority. The appellate authority may afford opportunity of hearing to the 2 Civil Writ Petitions No.15678 of 2009 auction purchasers also. Till the appeal is decided, the confiscated goods, if not released, shall be retained by the respondents. With these observations, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 15, 2009 rps 3