Full Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. In all these cases, one of the questions as was raised is whether the Respondents have jurisdiction to confiscate rice, wheat and edible oil of petitioners after deletion of aforesaid items by Central Government from the purview of licensing order or not,
2. CWJC Nos. 2875 of 2000: 2884 of 2000 and 2900 of 2000 while relate to confiscation of rice & wheat, CWJC No. 2952 of 2000 relates to confiscation of edible oil. The petitioners have challenged the confiscation cases initiated against them and the orders passed therein.
Confiscation Case No. 19 of 2000 was instituted against petitioner Ashok Kumar Barnwal of CWJC No. 2875 of 2000, wherein confiscation order passed on 17th August, 2000. Confiscation Case No. 20 of 2000 was instituted against Birendra Kumar Barnwal of CWJC No. 2884 of 2000. wherein order of confiscation passed on 17th August, 2000. Confiscation Case No. 17 of 2000 was instituted against Gulab Chand Sao of CWJC No. 2900 of 2000, wherein the order of confiscation passed on 17th August. 2000. The Confiscation Case No. 21 of 2000 was instituted against petitioner Ajay Kumar of CWJC No. 2952 of 2000 as was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
3. The main plea taken by the petitioners is that the provision of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (Unification Order for short) is not applicable in respect to rice, wheat and edible oil.
The counsel for the petitioners relied on Patna High Court decision in the case of Smt. Kiran Bala Jain v. State of Bihar, reported in 1996(1) PLJR 730 and this Court's judgment in the case of Ram Narayan Saw v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2001 (2) JLJR 432.
4. The stand taken by the Respondents as shown in the impugned orders such as order dated 17th August. 2000 passed in Confiscation Case No. 19 of 2000 is that the Bihar Government (now Government of Jharkhand) has not amended its Control Order so rice, wheat and edible oil continued to be in the list of essential commodities of Control Order.
5. The aforesaid stand was highlighted by the counsel for the State who submitted that rice, wheat or edible oil having not deleted by the State from the Unification Order, even if the Central Government removed the storage limit, the provision of the Unification Order is applicable in respect to rice, wheat and edible oil for the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand).
6. The power to control production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities has been provided to the Central Government under Section 3 of E.C. Act. 1955, which includes regulation of essential commodities by licences, permits or otherwise storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption. Such power of Section 3 can be delegated by the Central Government to a State Government under Section 5 of the E.C. Act. 1955.
7. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the E.C. Act, 1955, the Central Government directed vide G.S.R. 800 dated 9th June. 1978 that the powers conferred on it by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of E.C. Act. to make order to provide for the matters specified in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (ii) and (j) of Sub-section (2) thereof, in relation to food stuffs be exercisable also by a State Government, subject to such directions if any, as may be issued by the Central Government on that behalf.
In exercise of such delegated power read with Section 3 of E.C. Act. 1955, the State Government (now read Jharkhand in its place) issued Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order. 1984.
8. From Government of India's letter No. F(11)(7)/94-E.C.R. & E dated 27th January. 1995, it appears that the Government of India took policy decision to liberalise food grains, keeping in view of the confortable food situation, the Central Government decided to abolish the stock limits on wheat and rice. The State Government and Union Territories were also informed accordingly to give effect to the decision of the Central Government.
Similarly, in respect to edible oil, the Government of India from the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs issued order on 10th November. 1997, omitting edible oils from the purview of pulses, edible oil seeds and edible oils (Strong Control) Order. 1977.
The Central Government being the delegator and the State Government being the delegatee, the State Government or its officers and authority thereof are empowered to exercise any such delegated powers, subject to any direction, as may be issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the E.C. Act.
9. In the case of Smt. Kiran Bala Jain v. State of Bihar, reported in 1996 (2) East Cr C 76 (Pat), the Court while referred the letter dated 27th January, 1995 of the Government of India. Ministry of Civil Supplies. Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, held that the stock limit of rice and wheat having abolished, no allegation of violation of provisions of' clause 3 of Unification Order can be alleged so far as rice and wheat are concerned.
10. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Ram Narayan Saw v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2001 (2) JLJR 432, wherein the Court held that the authorities cannot allege violations of the provisions of the E.C. Act for keeping excess stock of rice or wheat, nor can confiscate such goods under the provisions of the E.C. Act.
11. The case of Mali Ram Agarwal v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (1) East Cr C 24, related to seizure of edible oils and pulses. In the said case, the Court took into consideration the fact that the Central Government issued a Notification being S.O. 772(E) dated 10th November, 1977 deleting edible oils and edible seeds from the Central Order. The State Government had also directed all the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners and the District Officers to comply with the orders of the Central Government vide letter dated 7th June, 1998. The Court held that the said order in respect to edible oil stands repealed and the State Government's Notification ceased to be effective from the day the Central Government issued Notification repealing the same. The Court further held that the Central Government is competent to withdraw or repeal any order or regulation issued' by the State Government in the capacity of delegatee of the Central Government.
12. In view of aforesaid provisions of law, the orders passed by the Central Government with directions to the State Government to repeal the orders in respect to rice, wheat and edible oils and the decisions of the Courts, as referred above. I find that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceedings against the petitioners in respect to rice, wheat or edible oil and for that reason, the proceedings, as referred above, are set aside.
13. The Respondents are directed to release the quantity of rice, wheat or edible oil, as the case may he, confiscated from one or other petitioner, if not yet released, within two months.
14. All the writ petitions are allowed with the, aforesaid observations and directions.