RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by respondent No.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that a raid was conducted by a team comprising of police officials and the Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs, headed by the DFSC, Ludhiana, on the godown of M/s Chandi Ram Roshan Dass (respondent No.5 herein) and a huge quantity of sugar was recovered. The raided godown was sealed on 17.09.2009 and on 20.09.2009, with the permission of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, seals were broken and godown was opened in the presence of K.N. Singh, the then Tehsildar/Duty Magistrate and 9780 bags, each containing 100 Kgs. of sugar, was found stored. Pursuant thereto, FIR No.168 dated 20.09.2009 was registered under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") at Police 1 of 5 CWP No.22237 of 2014 [2] ***** Station Sahnewal, Ludhiana against the partners of respondent No.5 for illegally stocking of sugar in violation of the guidelines/notification/ instructions dated 16.07.2009 issued by the Central Government in terms of Section 3 of the Act read with Clause 5 of the Sugar Control Order, 1996, which prohibited stock of sugar of more than 2000 quintals by a recognized dealer. The District Magistrate/Collector, Ludhiana, vide order dated 15.10.2009, by exercising his powers under Section 6A of the Act, ordered confiscation of 9780 quintals of sugar recovered from the godown of respondent No.5 and also ordered for its sale as per the procedure prescribed by law. The order of the Collector was challenged by way of five appeals, 4 filed by the present petitioners and the 5th by respondent No.5 as according to the petitioners, they had also stocked the sugar in the godown of respondent No.5 to the extent of 1870 quintals, 1970 quintals, 1980 quintals and 1990 quintals respectively besides the sugar of 1970 quintals of respondent No.5. Although it has been observed in appeal by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana that in case the partners of respondent No.5 are acquitted from the criminal charge, the firm(s) would be entitled to refund of the price of the confiscated sugar from the State but the appeal was dismissed on 27.02.2010.
(2.) The four partners of respondent No.5, however, were tried in the FIR No.168 of 2009 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, acquitted vide order dated 22.04.2013 and it was ordered by the Magistrate that the case property be dealt with as per the Rules. After acquittal of the partners of respondent No.5, an application was filed to respondent No.2 to release the sale proceeds of the sugar which was sold during the pendency of those proceedings being perishable commodity but vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2014, the respondent No.2 has ordered for refund of the price of sugar only to the extent of 1970 quintals to respondent No.5 alleging that only that much of sugar belongs to the said firm. Aggrieved against this order, the present petition has been filed.
(3.) During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioners made a statement on 31.10.2014 that they would have no objection if the entire value of sugar, which was confiscated and sold, be returned to respondent No.5. Actually thereafter, respondent No.5 was impleaded as a party through an application bearing CM No.15904 of 2014.;