VASANT KUMAR GUPTA AND 10 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES LKO. AND ANOTHER
WRIC/11442/2024 · 2025-01-20
Manish Kumar, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 170934 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 170934 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3302-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11442 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vasant Kumar Gupta And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Pandey,Abhijeet Misrha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioners including petitioner no.1 have challenged the order of confiscation passed under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. There is a remedy of appeal against such an
order under Section 6C of the Act, 1955.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner nos. 2 to 11 have not been given opportunity of hearing envisaged under Section 6B of the Act, 1955. Petitioner nos. 2 to 11 claim ownership of the gas cylinders which have been confiscated by the impugned order from the premises of the petitioner no.1. It is their case that they had kept their cylinders in the premises of the petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 was given notice under Section 6B of the Act, 1955, a fact which is not disputed by the petitioners' counsel. However, the owners were petitioner nos.2 to 11 who have not been given notice.
4. Section 6B of the Act, 1955 envisages a show case notice to the owner of such essential commodity etc or a person from whom it is seized. Now, petitioner no.1 is the person from whom it is seized but petitioner nos.2 to 11 claim ownership. As far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, if he is aggrieved and has a cause then he can prefer an appeal against the said order but so far as petitioner nos.2 to 11 are concerned, we permit them to move an application before the confiscating authority who is District Magistrate, Gonda who shall get the facts verified and thereafter take such decision in respect of the confiscation qua the petitioner nos.2 to 11 as may be required in law. Let this exercise be completed within one
month.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as we cannot decide question of ownership of confiscated items under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench