M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have challenged the order dated 26 -10 -99 passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by reason whereof he has confiscated the truck of the petitioners bearing registration No. BR -14G -8058 and HR -29 -A -7688 and directed for sale of the trucks in public auction.
(2.) PETITIONERS are the owner of the trucks. On the basis of report of the Marketing Officer, Jamshedpur, a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short E.C. Act) was instituted against one Amarjeet Singh, Devendra Prasad Agarwal and the drivers of the trucks as aforesaid. These two trucks found loaded with sugar standing in front of the shop of one Amarjeet Singh. It is alleged in the report that a substantial quantity of sugar was already unloaded from truck No. BR -14 -G -8058 and only 54 bags were found on it. The drivers and the persons named above could not produce any document in support of sugar rather the drivers disclosed that they had loaded the sugar from the godown of Food Corporation of India and it was being carried to Jhinkpani in West Singhbhum, but the same was unloaded in the shop of Amarjeet Singh. The shop of Amarjeet Singh was found open and it was inspected in presence of the employee of the shop and during inspection 29 bags of sugar and 196.65 kg. wheat were found which was beyond the prescribed limit. The inspecting team accordingly seized the trucks and the commodities which were found in the shop of Amarjeet Singh and a Confiscation proceeding under Section 6A of the E.C. Act was initiated. Respondent No. 2 being the Confiscating Authority finally passed the impugned order confiscating the trucks.
(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that the trucks in question were carrying goods like sugar for which no document could be produced when required by the Marketing Officer, Jamshedpur. It is stated that the petitioners being the owners of the vehicle did not filed show cause and consequently final order of confiscation was passed by respondent No. 2.;