- (1.) C. A. No. 3214 of 1989. In this appeal, a Matador (Mini Lorry) carrying 44 bags of cement was intercepted and seized by the Bajpe Police, Dakshina Kannada on 22-8-1983. Proceedings under Section 6A of the Act were initiated before the Deputy Commissioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent applied for interim release of vehicle and the same was granted by order dated 1-9-1983 on his furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. one lakh. That order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 16668 of 1983 on the ground that imposition of such condition was illegal and onerous. The learned Single Judge after considering second proviso to Section 6A(1) held that the words "market price" occurring in the section relate only to "the essential commodity sought to be carried". According to the learned Judge "the proviso gives a concession to the owner to avert confiscation by paying fine not exceeding the market price prevalent on the date of its seizure of the essential commodity". According to the learned Judge if option is to pay a fine equivalent to the market price of the vehicle then there is no necessity to give such option. Owner instead of paying a fine equivalent to the market price can as well think of purchasing a new or fresh vehicle. He, therefore, directed release of the vehicle accepting the Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs. 500/- only. Being aggrieved the State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in WA No. 2248 of 1983 which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 22-3-1988. C.A. Nos. 5074-75 of 1989
(2.) In these appeals, two transport vehicles belonging to the respondents carrying paddy were seized by the Police for the alleged contravention of Food Control Orders. Applications were filed before the Deputy Commissioner for release of said vehicles. By order dated 16-2-1989 the Deputy Commissioner passed an order directing the release of the vehicles in question on their furnishing Bank Guarantee in a sum of Rupees three lakhs each. That order was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ Petitions Nos. 3563 and 3579 of 1989. The High Court following its earlier decision in Rudolph Fernandes v. Deputy Commissioner, D. K., (1984) 1 Kant LJ 200 : (AIR 1984 Kant 106) (C. A. No. 3214/89 before us) allowed the writ petitions and reduced the fine amount to rupees 10,000/- each.
(3.) Both the orders are challenged before us in these appeals.;