AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent assails the judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. 5035 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application.
Indisputably, from the godown of the appellant/petitioner huge quantity of rice and wheat were seized as essential commodities.
It has been contended by the appellant that as per Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities, Act, 1955 (Bihar Amendment), rice and wheat are exempted articles and the said articles cannot be seized as essential commodities.
Be that as it may, after seizure of the said articles, the State authorities initiated confiscation proceeding in Confiscation Case No. 50 of 2014. Thereafter, the Collector, Samastipur confiscated the food grains under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the E.C. Act, 1955).
Suffice it to say that the appellant previously filed C.W.J.C. No. 16104 of 2016 before the learned Single Bench with the following prayer, which reads as hereunder :-
“That the petitioner further prays before this Hon’ble Court to release the auction amount of the seized grain to the tune of Rs. 63,01,000/- deposited in the treasury along with 18 % interest from the date, it was seized to the date on which the actual amount is paid as the whole confiscation proceeding is wrong, illegal and an abuse the process of law and for any other relief/reliefs, this Hon’ble Court may find fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant refers to the provision of appeal under the E. C. Act, 1955, contained in Section 6-C of the said Act. Section 6-C (2) of the said Act is relevant for our purpose and quoted below :-
“ 6C.Appeal. (2) : Where an order under Section 6-A 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 under Section 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 person shall except as provided by Sub-section 3 of Section 6-A, be paid] the price therefore as if [the essential commodity] has been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of seizure of [the essential commodity], [and such price shall be determined….”
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant actually prayed for payment of interest, the learned Single Judge while disposing of C.W.J.C. 16104 of 2016 passed the following order :-
“ The petitioner shall be entitled to be paid the price of the wheat and rice confiscated, which shall be quantified by the Collector, Samastipur in accordance with the provisions of E.C. Act within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of a representation by the petitioner in this behalf.”
Thus, upon perusal of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16104 of 2016, it is evident that the learned Single Judge did not specifically consider the payment of interest on the confiscated amount payable to the petitioner. The petitioner neither preferred an appeal against the said order nor filed an application for review before the same Court. After a lapse of about one and a half years, when the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16104 of 2016 had attained finality, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 5035 of 2020 (impugned order), in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has clearly stated :-
“ 7. It is not in dispute that the price of the confiscated wheat and rice have been paid to the petitioner. At the time of filing the first writ application and disposal of the same, the petitioner did not pray for grant of reasonable interest on the price of the food grains as per the statutory provision.
8.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since criminal case was pending, therefore, the interest was not demanded at the time of filing of the first writ application and after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Samastipur, for grant of interest.”
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that a relief to which the petitioner is entitled cannot be claimed in piecemeal manner. If the relief is not claimed, the writ petition will suffer from mis-joinder of claim and in case of mis-joinder of claim, if the relief is not amended subsequently and part of the claim is granted by the writ court and the order of the writ Court becomes final, subsequent application is not maintainable.
However, in the instant case, the petitioner claimed interest in his prayer portion at the rate of 18 % over the confiscated amount, but the writ Court did not pass any order, the said order has reached its finality, as such we are not in a position to override the said order even sitting in the Division Bench.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.