TAPATI GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2002-3-100
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on March 19,2002

TAPATI GHOSH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 24.12.2001 as contained at Annexure 1 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner, SahebganJ (Respondent No. 2) in Confiscation Case No. 2/2001 -2002, whereby and whereunder, he has confiscated the truck bearing No. BR -12 -7365 including the other articles and has passed an order of auction of the truck. The petitioner has also made a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to release the truck in favour of the petitioner as she is the legal owner of the vehicle in question.
(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner, on 11.7.2001 the Supply Inspector, Barharwa conducted a raid in the premises of one Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and seized 147 tins of mustard oil, 14 tins of dalda, 30 quintals of sugar and also a truck bearing registration No. BR -12 -7365 and handed over the same to the Officer -in -charge, Kotal Pokhar (Barharwa) P.S. Subsequently, on 13.7.2001 an FIR was registered being Kotal Pokhar P.S. Case No. 36/2001 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against one Rajesh Kumar Agarwal. Further case of the petitioner is that after registration of the aforementioned case an application for initiating a confiscation proceeding under Section 6 -A of the E.G. Act was filed by the Supply Inspector, Barharwa and accordingly, a Confiscation Case No. 2/2001 -2002 was instituted and a show cause notice was issued to the said Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and after hearing him the respondent No. 2 confiscated the above mentioned articles as also the truck and passed an order dated 24.12.2001 for auction sale thereof. According to petitioner, from a perusal of the aforementioned order dated 24.12.2001 it would be apparent that no show cause notice was ever issued against the petitioner and in the absence of such show cause notice and without hearing the petitioner, the said order could not have been passed confiscating the petitioners truck and putting the same to auction sale.
(3.) ACCORDING to petitioner, the goods which were seized were purchased by Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and the petitioners truck was used for transportation by one transporter named Ajit Dutta on whose telephonic instructions, the driver of the truck had loaded the articles and had taken it to Kotal Pokhar where it was seized without any knowledge to the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.