Jayanta Kumar Biswas - (1.) THE petitioner in this AST under art. 226 dated October 3, 2012 is questioning an order of the Collector, Murshidabad dated July 30, 2012 (AST p.48) passed under s. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Collector initiated proceedings for confiscation of the seized commodity and has ordered its confiscation. He, however, did not mention, either in the show cause notice or in the order, for violation of which provision of which order made under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 he initiated the proceedings.
(2.) IN his objection to the show cause notice the petitioner contended that no case of violation of any provision of any order made under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was stated in the show cause notice. The Collector, it is evident, has not considered this aspect. In my opinion, the question is related to the jurisdiction of the Collector to initiate the confiscation proceedings. During pendency of the confiscation proceedings the Collector did not pass any interim order under sub -s.(2) of s. 6A. The petitioner has prayed for admission of the AST and a restraining order.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that a restraining order is likely to cause serious damage to the commodity that is subject to speedy and natural decay. Under the circumstances, Mr Sengupta appearing for the State was directed to ascertain from the Collector for violation of which provision of which order made under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the confiscation proceedings were initiated.;