AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Rajendran, J.—Mr. M. Dhandapani, the learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondent.
By consent of both the counsel, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 20.3.2009 on the ground that he is the hire purchase agreement holder and therefore, he is the owner of the vehicle till the last installment is paid. He would also contend that the vehicle was seized by the authorities concerned for illegal transportation. He would also contend that he was not aware of the seizure order dated 12.6.2008 and no notice was served to the hirer either in respect of the seizure order or in respect of the confiscation order passed on 4.12.2008. As the petitioner was trying to collect the huge amount dues from the borrower, recently he came to know that the vehicle was confiscated by the Department. Coming to know of the confiscation of the vehicle, the petitioner made representations to the respondent on 13.1.2009 and 20.3.2009 calling upon the authority to release the vehicle as he is the holder of the higher purchase agreement and that he has not been intimated about this. He would further contend that for the representations made by the petitioner, the respondent has passed the impugned order on 20.3.2009 and only then he came to know that the vehicle was confiscated by the Government. He would further contend that the vehicle itself has been confiscated on 4.12.2008 and his representation has been rejected and the impugned order was passed by the authorities on 20.3.2009.
In the impugned order of the respondent dated 20.3.2009, it has been clearly stated that the vehicle has been confiscated by the Government on 4.12.2008, pursuant to the seizure order dated 12.6.2008, after due notice was served to the owner as per the R.C. Book, who has not responded to the same. It has also been pointed out that the vehicle was seized as early as on 12.6.2008. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent pointed out that the impugned order is an appealable one and that the provision is available under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and therefore, no writ will lie, since an alternative remedy is available.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which reads as follows:
6-C. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation u/s 6-A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to (any judicial authority appointed by the State Government concerned and the judicial authority) shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against.
(2) Where an order u/s 6-A is modified or annulled by (such judicial authority), or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made u/s 6-A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible for any reason to (return the essential commodity seized), (such persons shall, except as provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A, be paid) the price therefore (as if the essential commodity,) had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the confiscation of (the essential commodity)(and such price shall be determined--
(i) in the case of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3-B) of Section 3;
(ii) in the case of sugar, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3-C) of Section 3; and
(iii) in the case of any other essential commodity, in accordance with the provisions Sub-section (3) of Section 3.)
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would also point out that even though the impugned order pertaining to the confiscation was received by him only on 20.3.2009, immediately thereafter, he has also approached this Court. But the main confiscation order dated 4.12.2008 was never intimated nor he was aware of the same and that as hirer, he is entitled to seek for the release of the vehicle as the owner has not turned up for the enquiry. Even according to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent taking into consideration the limited scope in the writ petition, he has also fairly conceded that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal subject to the delay in preferring the appeal. The petitioner would plead that as he has never been served with the notice of seizure and if a notice has been sent, he would have taken steps for release of the vehicle. But the contention cannot be now taken up by the petitioner, as he had already approached the authority and sought for the release which had been negatived and against such order admittedly an appeal lies.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by the leaned Government Pleader for the respondent that there is an appeal specifically provided in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the petitioner''s request, the petitioner is directed to move the appellate authority u/s 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as against the impugned order dated 20.3.2009 and the delay if any in filing the same may be considered by the appellate authority taking into consideration the delay occurred due to the petitioner having approached this Court. If any appeal is filed by the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority may consider the appeal in accordance with law and pass orders on merits.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed. No costs.