V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in the present case have prayed for a writ of certiorari requesting to quash the order dated 14 -8 -1991 passed by the respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. According to the petitioners they are tenure -holders and had sown crops of ground nut, Masoor, Sarson, Moong and gram in the last Rabi crop of the year 1991. According to the petitioners, they reside in the interior of the village where there is no facility of market for the sale of their agricultural produce and thus they have taken Godown of Sri Sita Ram Gupta, son of Narain Das Gupta resident of village Raksa, P.S. Raksa District Jhansi on rent and were paying charges of Rs. 1/ - per bag per month. The aforesaid premises was raided on 9 -8 -1991 and admittedly a first information report has been lodged for violation of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989. Admittedly this Order had been issued under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 14 -8 -1991 has passed an order under Section 6A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter described as the "Act") and had ordered that the seized commodities be sold by public auction and the amount which may be realised be deposited under the Head "Criminal." It is this order passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 6A(2) of the Act which has been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has first urged that the entire seizure proceedings are bad inasmuch as the petitioner has not committed any contravention of any order issued under Section 3/7 of the Act. We, are, however, of the opinion that at the time of the passing of the order under Section 6A(2) of the Act, the competent authority has not to go into the question regarding the validity of the criminal proceedings which have been launched against the petitioner. The only limited purpose for the exercise of the power under Section 6A(2) of the Act is to pass appropriate orders in case the seized commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do. The argument raised, therefore, has no force. It has been then urged that the order under Section 6A(2) of the Act has been passed without any opportunity to the petitioner. So far as this court is concerned this precise question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in the case of Jai Jagdamba Trading Company and another v. State of U.P. and others : 1986 EFR 461 it has been held that in a case under Section 6A(2) the Legislature has not provided any right to any person for being heard and the opportunity of hearing was expressly excluded.
(3.) LOOKING to the nature of the power and the circumstances under which the power under Section 6A(2) of the Act can be exercised, we are also of the opinion that the legislature intentionally did not place the authority under a mandate to pass an order only after affording opportunity to the concerned person. The reason was obvious. The power could be exercised only in two circumstances. The first circumstance is being that the essential commodity was subject to speedy and natural decay. In case the essential commodity is of such a nature that it lose its existence for the purposes of consumption in case it was not disposed of at an early date, the authority was rightly directed to get the essential commodity auctioned or sold through a fair price shop, in case there was a controlled price fixed by the Central or the State Government. So far as the seized commodity in question is concerned there cannot be any doubt that the essential commodities are not meant for hoarding but are meant for sale to the general public for consumption either at a price which is prevailing in the open market or in case there is a controlled price then at that price through the fair price shop. Ample safeguards have been provided to see that the price of essential commodity is realised and the commodity is not allowed to deteriorate in its quality. In case of bona fide exercise of this power, which we are bound to presume, unless shown otherwise the auction of the seized property in case it is subject to speedy and natural decay would serve the purpose of the power inasmuch as by no stretch of imagination it could fetch better price after deterioration. The best price which could be fetched for such an essential commodity which has been seized would be at a stage when it had not deteriorated in quality.;