Vinod Prasad, J. - (1.) WRIT petitioner Maharani Deen Bind, through the instant writ petition, has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing impugned orders dated 22.1.2010 passed by respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Jaunpur, Annexure 10 and subsequent appellate order dated 23.4.2010 passed by respondent No. 2, Special Judge (EC Act), Court No. 6, Jaunpur, Annexure 11. By the former order District Magistrate, respondent No. 3 had ordered for confiscation of petitioner's truck having registration number UP 70 L 9158 under Section 6- A E.C. Act, which order has been affirmed by respondent No. 2, lower appellate court/ Special Judge, E.C.Act vide impugned order Annexure 11.
(2.) UNDERLYING facts, briefly stated, were that, on 8.10.2009, Station Officer, PS Machali Shahar communicated Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Machali Shahar that fair price shop rice is being illegally transported for black marketing in petitioner's truck and, consequently, on the instructions of SDM, Om Prakash, Supply Inspector, alongwith Arvind Kumar Dubey, Marketing Inspector, and Satya Deo, Supply Clerk, checked the said truck, which was parked in front of PS Machali Shahar. On interrogation Lalji, driver of the truck informed the checking party that loaded 182 bags of rice, weighing 110 quintals, were loaded from the go-down of one Israra Khan s/o Asgar Khan and the truck belonged to the petitioner s/o Ram Khiladi, R/O Fatanpur district Pratapgarh. On some of the bags tag of Sudhir Agro Energy Ltd. was stitched. Marketing Inspector, after verifying the tag and quality of the rice informed the Supply Inspector that the quality of rice was common Arva, which was received for being distributed from market centers and was being transported for black marketing. Since the activity was in contravention of provisions of Public Distribution System Control Order 2001 coupled with U.P. Scheduled Commodity Distribution Order 2004, punishable under 3/7 E. C. Act 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act), that the rice bags and the truck were seized and were given in custody of S.O. Machali Shahar. A seizure memo, Annexure 3 was also drawn in that respect. On the basis aforesaid seizure, SDM Machali Shahar sought and was accorded permission by respondent No. 3 to get an FIR lodged against Israr Khan vide Annexure 4, consequent upon which, on the instructions of SDM, vide Annexure 6, that Supply Inspector lodged FIR, Annexure 1, against Israr Khan being crime number 769 of 2009, under Section 3/7 E.C.Act at PS Machali Shahar district Jaunpur. On the basis of SDM's report, District Magistrate, respondent No. 3, after registering case No. 12 under Section 6-A of the Act, issued a show-cause notice, Annexure 7, to the writ petitioner under Section 6-B, of the Act, on 26.10.2009, requiring him to show-cause as to why his truck in question be not confiscated in favour of the State. On 16.11.2009 petitioner replied said notice stating thereunder that he is owner of truck No. UP70 L 9158 and has a transport business. Israr had hired his aforesaid truck on 8.10.2009 at Rs. 3000/- hire charges and driver Lalji s/o Sri Nath R/o Hathgavan PS Soraon, district Allahabad had plied the truck to Israr Khan. Neither he nor his driver Lalji had any knowledge about the rice belonging to public distribution system. At all times driver was under the impression that the same belonged to the trader. Writ Petitioner further replied that he had never associated his truck with black marketing and had always plied in licerily (according to law). Petitioner's further reply was that he had nothing to do with the rice bags in question. His standard truck was putriscencing at the police station and petitioner was suffering economically and therefore his truck be not confiscated and be released in his favour.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3,Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur, after hearing both the sides, concluded, vide impugned order dated 22.1.2010, Annexure 10, that in connivance and with knowledge of the petitioner, without valid papers and documentation, that the rice belonging to Public Distribution System that loaded in petitioner's truck and therefore petitioner allowed his truck to contravene provisions of the Act and, therefore, he rejected petitioner's objection and ordered for confiscation of his truck under Section 6-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of confiscation aforementioned passed by Respondent No. 3, writ petitioner preferned Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2010, Maharani Deen Bind v. State of U.P., before Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jaunpur respondent No. 2 but was unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed by Special Judge, E.C. Act who concluded, vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.4.2010, Annexure 11, that impugned confiscation order was justified and proper. Hence this writ petition by the petitioner challenging both the orders Annexures 10 and 11.;