- (1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the following reliefs: " (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16- 10-2006 passed by District Magistrate, Deoria (Annexure 1 to this writ petition) so far as it related to the petitioner. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the foodgrains measuring 344 quintal rice and 24. 50 quintal wheat seized by officials from the house of Ram Asre Gupta belonging to the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner. "
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 1-10-2006 an F. I. R. was lodged by the Supply Inspector, Tehsil Sadar Deoria against the petitioner and others under the provisions of 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and recovered 418 quintals rice and 172. 50 quintals wheat alongwith some other articles, on the allegations that the said foodstuff belonged to the public distribution system and had been stored by the accused persons for the purpose of blackmarketting. On 16-10-2006 the District Magistrate, Deoria passed the order under Section 6-A (2) for releasing the said foodstuff for sale through public distribution system, and a further direction had been issued to deposit the sale considerations In the Treasury. Notice was also issued to the petitioner and other accused for confiscation. THE petitioner had filed the reply to the said show-cause, which is still pending consideration, and this petition has been filed for seeking the aforesaid reliefs. Shri Srikant Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court may direct the District Collector to release the goods in favour of the petitioner, as the foodstuff belonged to him. However, it is opposed by Shri C. K. Rai, learned standing Counsel, appearing for respondents submitting that it is neither in public interest, nor such a course is permissible in view of the provisions of the Act, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE scheme of the Act is when an order is passed and proceedings are initiated under Section 3 of the Act for confiscation, the District Collector has a power of seizure and disposal of the commodities in view of the provisions of Section 6-A. However, Section 6-C provides for an appeal to the State Government against the order of confiscation. Section 6-E bars the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the order passed by the District Collector. In Anil Kumar v. State of U. P. , 1990 All. LJ. 1114, this Court had taken a view in a case where the cement had been seized by the police from the premises of a person who was the dealer of non-levy cement and an F. I. R. had been lodged under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the application for release can be considered by the competent Criminal Court under Section 457 Cr. P. C. for release, in view of the fact that, the seized cement was of non-levy and no offence had been committed. While deciding the said case reliance had been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar Rathore, AIR 1990 SC 1849, wherein, it was held that mere pendency of confiscation proceedings do not oust the jurisdiction of the competent Court under the Criminal Procedure Code to release the seized property under Section 457 Cr. P. C.;