Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr Shankar Lal Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Pradip Modi, learned GP I for the State-Respondents.
2. The Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29.12.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3) in Revenue Miscellaneous Confiscation Case No. 147 of 1998-99, by which he initiated proceeding for confiscating the seized articles under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and issued notice to the Petitioners to show cause as to why the said articles be not confiscated under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act.
3. According to the Petitioners, he is the owner of the goods while the Petitioner No. 2 is the owner of the truck, which, according to the informant/respondent No. 2, was flagged to stop for the purpose of an enquiry on receipt of an information about the goods loaded thereon. The driver of the truck produced a Road Permit issued in favour of M/s. Laxmi Traders, Dhalbhumgarh and issued by the Office of the Commercial Taxes Department on 1.12.1998. According to the Road Permit, it was specifically mentioned that 400 tins of refined oil had been dispatched. However, on actual verification, it was found that contrary to only 400 tins of refined oil, other items beyond the particulars mentioned in the Permit was found and accordingly, the authorities came to a conclusion that the owner of M/s Laxmi Traders had misused the Road Permit. The second allegation was that inspite of demand for documents relating to the goods, the driver did not to show and this led to a presumption of violation of law and accordingly the articles were recommended for seizure and initiation of confiscation proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner upon receipt of the said report, recorded the gist of the allegations as reported by the respondent No. 2 and accordingly seized the goods and initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and issued notice upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why the goods and the truck be not confiscated finally. It is against the aforesaid notice that the Petitioners have come before this Court making a prayer inter alia that the order dated 29.12.1998 should be quashed inasmuch it is totally without jurisdiction.
4. Mr. Shankar Lal Agrawal, learned counsel for the Petitioners has raised basically two points, the first of which is that neither in the prosecution report nor in the order of the Deputy Commissioner has it been mentioned as to which particular Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated. According to him, the only allegation that has been made is that there has been misuse of the Road Permits and the other allegation is non-production of papers in relation to the goods loaded on the truck. According to him misuse of Road Permit cannot be a subject of either confiscation or for prosecution in any manner whatsoever under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. He further submits that mere non-production of paper cannot be a violation because such non-production was in transit and no where in the terms and conditions of the licence is there any mention of a condition which makes it obligatory upon the licence to produce or show papers upon demand in transit. Such a demand, according to him, can only be made within the place of business and not while the goods are being transported for purposes of business.
5. Mr Pradip Modi, learned GPI has contended that the Writ Application is misconceived on two grounds. Firstly, because the Petitioners have approached this Court without filing cause pursuant to the notice and secondly, because on account of non-production of papers there is a strong presumption that the Petitioners are indulging in business which cannot be permitted to be lawful. He further submits that by not having produced the papers and by not having shown papers to the authorities, the Petitioners have violated the terms and conditions of the licence and therefore they have made themselves liable for prosecution and/or confiscation under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act.
6. This Court does not accept the contentions of Mr. Pradip Modi, learned GPI, From a plain reading of the prosecution report as also the impugned order, it is absolutely clear that only two allegations have been made and they are--(a) that the owner of M/s. Laxmi Traders had misused the Road Permit; and (b) that the driver failed to produce papers in respect of the articles loaded on the truck.
7. For misuse of Road Permits, the authorities could not have taken recourse to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The proper course for them would have been to proceed in terms of the provisions laid down under Section 31 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1931, but certainly not under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Additionally, misuse of Road Permit cannot be termed to be a violation in so far as the Essential Commodities Act or the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order is concerned nor can this be said to be an explanation of the authorities to justify their mistake and say that this is one of those violations which must be taken into consideration for purposes of rejecting the Writ Application. It is now well known that unless the authorities specify as to which particular Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated, a proceeding to confiscate becomes academic and for such academic pursuits a person should not unnecessarily be dragged into a protracted litigation and asked to file cause before the authorities thereby subjecting himself to the rigors of the trial merely because he has filed this Writ Application against a Notice to Show Cause. The other contention of Mr. Pradip Modi, learned GP I to the effect that non-production of the documents is violation of the terms and conditions of the licence is also rejected taking into consideration that the licence no where requires a dealer to be always equipped with documents round the clock 365 days a year. He is required to produce the documents in the business premises during business hours. In this context the definition of the words 'place of business' as given in the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Orders becomes relevant to be taken note of. The definition of 'place of business' as per Section 2L means any place where written transaction of trade articles is done and their stock, sale and account registers are maintained. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the truck was flagged down to stop. Therefore, the goods were in transit. There is no provision under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order which makes a transitory situation to be deemed to be a place of business also. Similarly, there is also no provision under the terms and conditions of the licence provided under the aforementioned Order of 1984 that a licencee is required to keep the papers and/or to produce papers in transit. Mr. Pradip Modi, learned GPI, however, refers to Clauses 7 and 8 of the terms and conditions of the licence and submits that as per these two provisions, a licencee is required to issue and produce the papers on demand. The argument of Mr. Pradip Modi, learned GPI is not acceptable on account of the fact that this Court has already held that while in transit the truck could not have been treated to be a place of business and in that view of the matter, the terms and conditions of the licence could not have been made applicable upon a truck which was in motion. Thus from a plain reading of the prosecution report as also the Order which has been challenged in this Writ Application, this Court is definitely of the opinion that the authorities having not clearly stated as to which particular provision of which particular Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was violated, they cannot be allowed to mechanically set the law in motion in routine manner. In that view of the matter, the judgment cited by Mr. Shankar Lal Agrawal in the case of Shanti Trading Company and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1988 East Cr C 655 is taken note of and applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. Similarly, the other judgment, which also needs to be taken note of and applied in this case, is the case of Shyam Kishore Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in 1987 PLJR 78. At paragraph 3 of the said judgment it has been held that 'It is now well established in law that for initiating a confiscation proceeding authorities must set out the grounds in order to give an effective opportunity to explain the alleged irregularities. In absence of statements of ground a person is denied a real and effective opportunity to show cause. This is not only the basic principle of natural justice, but also the requirement of Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act.' In the instant case and as has already been taken note of, the entire case is totally silent in relation to the violation of the Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore in the absence of such an ingredient which is sine qua non for proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act, the Petitioners could not possibly have known the points that they are supposed to take before the Deputy Commissioner who has initiated the proceeding. Their appearance before the Deputy Commissioner only for showing cause would be an empty formality and they would unnecessarily be dragged in a protracted litigation without being told of their offence. Such a thing cannot be allowed. Unless a person is told of the crime he has committed, he cannot be dragged to a Court of law and subjected to enforced litigation. In that view of the matter, the argument of Mr. Pradip Modi, learned GPI to the effect that the Writ Application being against a notice should not be interfered with, is rejected.
8. Consequently, the Writ Application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. In the event the Petitioners have furnished any security or bond etc. pursuant to the interim order that had been passed by this Court on 1.7.1999, they shall be discharged therefrom. No order as to cost.