Laxmi Wheat Product Private Ltd., vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.274 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5035 of 2020
======================================================
Laxmi Wheat Product Private Ltd., 2nd Sector, Industrial Area, Harpur Alloth,
District- Samastipur through one of its Director Binod Kumar Agrawal, Aged
about 61 years, Gender- Male, Son of Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, Resident of
Village- Ujiyarpur, Police Station- Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Civil Supply
Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Old Secretariat,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.
4. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Samastipur.
5. The Block Supply Officer, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 01-09-2026
The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent assails the judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 passed
by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. 5035 of 2020, whereby
the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application.
2. Indisputably, from the godown of the
appellant/petitioner huge quantity of rice and wheat were seized
as essential commodities.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
2/5
3. It has been contended by the appellant that as per
Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities, Act, 1955 (Bihar
Amendment), rice and wheat are exempted articles and the said
articles cannot be seized as essential commodities.
4. Be that as it may, after seizure of the said
articles, the State authorities initiated confiscation proceeding in
Confiscation Case No. 50 of 2014. Thereafter, the Collector,
Samastipur confiscated the food grains under Section 6-A of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the E.C. Act, 1955 ) .
5. Suffice it to say that the appellant previously
filed C.W.J.C. No. 16104 of 2016 before the learned Single
Bench with the following prayer, which reads as hereunder :-
“That the petitioner further prays
before this Hon’ble Court to release the auction
amount of the seized grain to the tune of Rs.
63,01,000/- deposited in the treasury along with 18
% interest from the date, it was seized to the date on
which the actual amount is paid as the whole
confiscation proceeding is wrong, illegal and an
abuse the process of law and for any other
relief/reliefs, this Hon’ble Court may find fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
6. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant
refers to the provision of appeal under the E. C. Act, 1955,
contained in Section 6-C of the said Act. Section 6-C (2) of the
said Act is relevant for our purpose and quoted below :-
“ 6C.Appeal. (2) : Where an order
under Section 6-A modified or annulled by such

Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
3/5
judicial authority, or where in a prosecution
instituted for the contravention of the order in
respect of which an order of confiscation has been
made under Section 6-A, the person concerned is
acquitted; and in either case, it is not possible for
any reason to [return the essential commodity
seized], [such person shall except as provided by
Sub-section 3 of Section 6-A, be paid] the price
therefore as if [the essential commodity] has been
sold to the Government with reasonable interest
calculated from the day of seizure of [the essential
commodity], [and such price shall be
determined….”
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant actually prayed for payment of
interest, the learned Single Judge while disposing of C.W.J.C.
16104 of 2016 passed the following order :-
“ The petitioner shall be entitled to be
paid the price of the wheat and rice confiscated,
which shall be quantified by the Collector,
Samastipur in accordance with the provisions of
E.C. Act within a period of 30 days from the date of
filing of a representation by the petitioner in this
behalf.”
8. Thus, upon perusal of the order passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 16104 of 2016, it is evident that the learned Single
Judge did not specifically consider the payment of interest on
the confiscated amount payable to the petitioner. The petitioner
neither preferred an appeal against the said order nor filed an
application for review before the same Court. After a lapse of
about one and a half years, when the order passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 16104 of 2016 had attained finality, the petitioner filed

Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
4/5
C.W.J.C. No. 5035 of 2020 (impugned order), in paragraphs 7
and 8 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has
clearly stated :-
“ 7. It is not in dispute that the price of
the confiscated wheat and rice have been paid to the
petitioner. At the time of filing the first writ
application and disposal of the same, the petitioner
did not pray for grant of reasonable interest on the
price of the food grains as per the statutory
provision.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that since criminal case was pending,
therefore, the interest was not demanded at the time
of filing of the first writ application and after
acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the
petitioner filed a representation before the District
Magistrate, Samastipur, for grant of interest.”
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we are of the considered view that a relief to which the
petitioner is entitled cannot be claimed in piecemeal manner. If
the relief is not claimed, the writ petition will suffer from mis-
joinder of claim and in case of mis-joinder of claim, if the relief
is not amended subsequently and part of the claim is granted by
the writ court and the order of the writ Court becomes final,
subsequent application is not maintainable.
10. However, in the instant case, the petitioner
claimed interest in his prayer portion at the rate of 18 % over the
confiscated amount, but the writ Court did not pass any order,
the said order has reached its finality, as such we are not in a

Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
5/5
position to override the said order even sitting in the Division
Bench.
11. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any
merit in the instant appeal and accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
saurabh.kr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date N.A.