Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jai Prakash Shukla And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. Civil Supply & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 1188 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 548 (9 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1188 of 2006

Jai Prakash Shukla & Anr.


State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that the petitioners goods (thinner), which is not an essential commodity, has been intercepted and taken into custody considering it to be essential commodity under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the ''Act, 1955'). The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act 1955 have not yet been finalised and the application of the petitioners for release of the goods is not being considered.

Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the competence of this Court to pass any order for release of goods during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act 1955, as no order of confiscation has yet been passed, placing a very heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (1990) 3 SCC 549. More so, reliance has also been placed upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the writ Court should not issue a direction which may be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-E of the Act 1955. In fact the provisions contained in Section 6-E of the Act put an embargo taking away the competence of the Court including the writ Court to pass any order or issue any direction to the Authority under the Act 1955 to release the goods prior to finalization of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act 1955. Thus, it is submitted by Shri Rai that this Court should not issue any direction for release of the goods as prayed for in the writ petition.

Be that as it may, in view of the preliminary objection and the judgments relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel, we are not inclined to pass any order for release of goods pending confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act 1955. However, we dispose of this writ petition requesting the District Magistrate, Fatehpur to expedite the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act 1955 and pass appropriate orders finally as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before him.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.