AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1. Heard Dr. M.K. Laik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Nitish Kumar Sahani, Advocate.Â
Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-state.Â
This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-Â
  “For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to open the seal of the Gate of Rice mill of
the petitioner so that the petitioner can run his rice mill which has been sealed by the Respondent illegally arbitrarily and without any Notice
whatsoever;â€Â
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises of the petitioner has been sealed and the goods has been seized under the direction of the
Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag. Prior to said harsh action, no notice whatsoever was served upon the petitioner and he has made a specific
statement at paragraph no. 27 that the petitioner was neither given any notice with regard to the said action nor any opportunity of hearing was given
to him before taking such harsh steps against the petitioner.Â
Counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid action has been taken in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly
appropriate order be passed to release the seal of the petitioner’s unit and the goods. Â
It appears from the record that in spite of repeated opportunities, respondents have not filed their counter-affidavit in this case. Counsel for the
respondents submits that as the counter affidavit has not been filed in this case, he is not in a position to state as to how and under what circumstances
the mill of the petitioner has been sealed. However, he submits that matter can be looked into by the Deputy Commissioner.Â
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that there is specific averment made in paragraph no. 27 of the writ petition
that the petitioner was neither given any notice nor given any opportunity of hearing before taking such harsh step against the petitioner of sealing the
unit of the petitioner with goods. Further, from Annexure-5 it is not clear that as to why and under what circumstances unit of the petitioner has been
sealed. As no counter affidavit has been filed, the statement made by the writ petitioner in the writ petition stands undisputed by the respondents.Â
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, is directed
to immediately pass appropriate order for removal of the seal of rice mill of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. Â
   Â