- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners and the State.
(2.) THE petitioners in this application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the respondent no. 2 in the Confiscation Case no. 4/2006 -7 whereby 62.50 quintals of rice belonging to the petitioners has been confiscated by the respondent no. 2 on the allegation that the rice was illegally procured by the petitioners from a PDS dealer against the provisions of law. The challenge to the impugned order has been made on the ground that such order could not have been passed in view of the fact that there was no control order restricting the stock limit, distribution and transportation of rice .
(3.) SRI Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners explains that the aforesaid quantity of rice was seized from the possession of the petitioners by the police on a suspicion that it was obtained by the petitioners from one Rajendra Shaw, a PDS dealer. The informant Sub Divisional Officer had filed FIR against the petitioners and on the basis of the said report, confiscation proceeding was also initiated. Inviting attention to certain paragraphs of the impugned order, and also referring to the order of the SDO dated 19.10.2006, learned counsel submits that the same SDO has given a clean chit to the PDS dealer Rajendra Saw on the ground that there was no involvement of Rajendra Saw in the alleged offence for which the petitioners are being prosecuted. Learned counsel adds further that from the said impugned order, it would be evident that the Police has confirmed that the seized rice was not obtained by the petitioners from PDS shop dealer Rajendra Saw in view of the fact that his stock register did not show any inconsistency or anomaly. Referring to the judgment passed by this Court in a similar case vide W.P. (C ) No. 3800 of 2006, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same issue was raised before this Court in the said writ petition wherein after considering the fact that control in respect of stock, distribution and transport etc on rice was abolished by the Central Government notification dated 15.2.2002, no offence under the Essential Commodities Act was made out and no confiscation proceeding could have been initiated for confiscation of the rice seized. Learned counsel explains that the same ratio applies to the facts of the present case also. ;