Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH PRAKASH GUPTA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Prakash Gupta v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 2909 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1097 (17 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2909 of 2006

Jagdish Prakash Gupta ------- Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.   ------- Respondents

     ----------------

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

The petitioner is challenging the impugned order of the District Magistrate dated 10.11.2005, Annexure 6 to this writ petition. Certain food grains (rice) has been ceased under the provisions of Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and being punishable commodity, it has been ordered to be sold under Section 6 A of the Act.

It is obvious that if the commodity has to be sold in the open market, whether by auction conducted by the State Authorities or by the petitioner  by private negotiations, it would make no difference to the end result, namely, release of the commodity in the open market.

It is also common knowledge that frequently State auctions are unable to fetch proper price.

In the circumstances, if the petitioner furnishes a Bank guarantee for the entire value of the rice as tentatively assessed by the District Magistrate and inform to the petitioner within two days of the date of production of a certified copy of this order, the rice will be released in favour of the petitioner immediately upon furnishing the Bank guarantee for the amount. If ultimately, confiscation of the commodity is ordered by the District Magistrate, the amount may be realised from the Bank guarantee, subject of course to the  petitioner's right of appeal against the confiscation order. Further if ultimately, it is found either by the District Magistrate or by the Court that the rice did not belong to the petitioner and it was not the rice which the petitioner alleges to have purchased from the firm of Ram Sanehi Lal and Vinod Kumar of Mainpuri, but is rice of fair price of public distribution system, even then the amount of the rice can always be realised from the petitioner from the Bank guarantee.

A counter affidavit may be filed by the Standing Counsel within a month.

17.1.2006

VKS


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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