V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) THE two petitioners in this petition initially prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents release 39 bags (39 quintals) of Arhar Dal, 16 bags (16 quintals) of Matar Dal in favour of petitioner No. 1 and 14 bags (14 quintals) of Moong Dal in favour of petitioner No. 2 which have seized on 7th February, 1991 in case Crime No. 80 of 1991 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at Police Station Naini District Allahabad in pursuance of the first information report dated 8th February, 1991 and which have been kept at police station Naini, Allahabad. It may be mentioned that Sri Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a statement before us that Criminal Miscellaneous writ No. nil of 1991 Gullu Jaiswal v. State of U.P., has been filed in which the launching of the criminal proceedings have been independently challenged and it has been prayed that the first information report lodged against the petitioners be quashed. It has also been stated that in the aforesaid writ petition the arrest of the petitioner has been stayed. After the filing of the writ petition an amendment application has been moved by which certain orders which have been passed under the Essential Commodities Act by the Additional Collector (Supplies) Allahabad dated 16 -2 -1991 and another order dated 16 -2 -1991 passed under Section 6A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act have been filed and they have also been challenged.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has firstly urged that the entire seizure proceedings are bad inasmuch as the petitioners had not committed any contravention of any order issued under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It has been urged that the aforesaid notice has been issued for initiation of proceedings under Section 6A of the Act to the petitioners, the seizure cannot be challenged in those proceedings in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Dayal Agrawal v. State of West Bengal and other : (1990) 3 SCC 549. So far as the validity of the seizure proceedings are concerned, we are of the opinion that in case the launching of the criminal prosecution for violation of the orders issued under Section 3/7 is justified, the consequential seizure proceedings will suffer from no infirmity. For the purposes of showing that the seizure is bad learned counsel for the petitioners had not urged that there was any procedural defect in so far as the seizure is concerned but tried to only show us that there was no violation of any order issued under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. We are of the opinion that in case the arguments regarding illegality of the seizure hinges only on the validity of the 'criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner, in our opinion this second writ petition will not be maintainable on the same facts inasmuch the petitioner, 'has' already filed criminal Miscellaneous writ No. nil of 1991 Gullu Jaiswal v. State of U.P., on 3 -2 -1991 in which the validity of the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner has been challenged. The petitioners therefore are not entitled to get any relief in respect of quashing of the seizure proceedings ground in this second writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has then urged that the order passed by the Additional Collector (Supplies) Allahabad dated 16 -2 -1991 is bad on two grounds i.e., firstly, it has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and secondly the Essential Commodities which have been seized was not such which was subject to speedy and natural decay or that it was otherwise expedient in the public interest to order the auction of the aforesaid seized commodity.;