9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Collector has the power under Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to release goods seized under Section 3 during the pendency of proceedings before the Special Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Power of the Collector under Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Facts: The petitioner, engaged in mustard oil manufacturing, had his factory raided by the District Enforcement Branch, resulting in the seizure of mustard seeds and mustard oil for purported license infractions and violations under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The seized goods were reported to the Collector under Section 6A for initiating confiscation proceedings. The petitioner applied for the release of the seized commodities under Section 6E, and the Additional Collector dropped the confiscation proceedings and ordered the release of the goods. The State Government's revision petition was allowed by the High Court, which held that the Collector had no power to release the goods under Section 6A read with Section 6E. Arguments: The petitioner argued that upon dropping the confiscation proceedings, the Collector was obliged to release the goods under Section 6E, as the jurisdiction of the Court to make orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, release, or distribution of such essential commodities is barred by Section 6E. Conversely, the Additional Solicitor General contended that the power to release under Section 6E refers to third parties, not the party from whom the goods were seized, and that releasing the goods to the petitioner would defeat the Act's purpose. Legal Provisions and Interpretation: The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, aims to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities in the public interest. Section 3 empowers the Central Government to regulate essential commodities, and Section 6A allows the Collector to confiscate seized commodities. Section 6E, inserted by Act No. 42 of 1986, bars courts from making orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, release, or distribution of seized commodities, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Collector or State Government under Section 6C. Judgment: The Supreme Court analyzed the scheme of the Act and concluded that the power of confiscation under Section 6A does not include the power of release. The words "pending confiscation" in Section 6E indicate that the Collector's power to release is limited to maintaining public interest by ensuring the steady supply of essential commodities and preventing artificial shortages. The term "release" in Section 6E does not imply "return" to the owner or the person from whom the goods were seized. The Act's objective is to prevent hoarding and ensure equitable distribution at fair prices. Therefore, the Collector cannot release the seized goods to the petitioner as it would defeat the Act's purpose. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Collector does not have the power to release seized goods to the owner or the person from whom they were seized under Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
