ORDER
Prabha Shanker Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. We do not want to pre-judge any issue as learned single Judge, it appears, has been persuaded to do. It is a fit case, in our opinion, in which this Court should exercise the refrain that no order should be made in respect of a sized property or the validity of the seizure of a property which is effected in connection with a criminal offence and in respect of which a charge is preferred in the Court. The writ petitioner-respondent is a dealer in pulses, which is one of the essential commodities. It is said, such stock of pulses with him was seized and a panchanama was prepared. The panchanama was made the subject of challenge before this Court and the writ petitioner – respondent, ignoring the proceedings for prosecution or in the event of a report for confiscation of the seized commodity, moved this Court for quashing of the seizure and consequential release of the seized commodity. Learned single Judge has accepted the writ plea and ordered accordingly.
3. Ordinary procedure of law is not only efficacious, in our opinion, but convenient to any person than invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court for judicial review of an administrative action of the police in exercise of its power of seizure either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, which is limited to seeing whether the authority concerned was competent to effect the seizure or not and whether it has been done in violation of any statutory requirement. It is indeed a clever approach of any trader not to seek release of the goods seized through the procedure prescribed for the same, but to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court and obtain such orders of release of the goods. Certain facts recorded by the learned single Judge as such, if they are accepted by any Court, it is obvious, no further examination of the question – whether any offence has been committed by the writ petitioner- respondent or not – is relevant. It is in such a situation that the State has chosen to prefer the instant appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner- respondent has behemently relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in P. Ramachandra Chetty v. Govt. of India, 1978 (2) ALT 212. The Court in the said case entered into the question whether the condition precedent of reasonable belief was complied with before the seizure was effected and held in that case that unless such a reasonable belief exists as to the likelihood of any contravention being committed or has been committed, there is no power in the officers to make such an entry. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has also cited an unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 549 of 1991, dated 15-9-1992, which is to the effect as above.
5. We are, however, not persuaded to go into any detailed examination of the law on the subject for, in our view the issue before us in completely different from the issue decided in the said cases. We are yet to know from the facts, after investigation into the criminal charges, whether any serious violation of the provisions of the Control Order has been committed by the writ petitioner -respondent or not.
6. We are inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge for the simple reason that the act of adjudicating in to facts to record a finding on the validity of the seizure on the basis of certain entries in the alleged panchanama and thus affecting any proceeding for confiscation of the goods and/or the criminal prosecution for the alleged offences, has the effect of completely exonerating the writ petitioner – respondent of any such proceedings. We are informed, however, that pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, the writ petitioner – respondent has got the seized goods released. Since we have found that the order of the learned single Judge is not in accordnace with law, we leave it open to the appellant to move the competent court for such directions either for the production of the goods released or security which may be acceptable. It shall be open to the writ petitioner – respondent to ask for the release of the goods on such conditions as the Court may think fit and proper and if goods are not produced as directed by the Court, to any order for security or otherwise in accordance with law.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed; the order of the learned single Judge is set aside, and Writ Petition No. 15524 of 1995 is dismissed.