A subsequent writ cannot reopen an ungranted interest claim after the earlier order attains finality.

Food grains, including rice and wheat, were seized from the appellant’s godown as essential commodities.

The State initiated Confiscation Case No. 50 of 2014, in which the Collector, Samastipur confiscated the seized food grains under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The appellant previously instituted C.W.J.C. No. 16104 of 2016 seeking release of the auction amount of ₹63,01,000, together with 18% interest, on the ground that the confiscation proceedings were illegal.

The writ court directed that the appellant be paid the price of the confiscated wheat and rice, to be quantified by the Collector in accordance with the Essential Commodities Act.

The appellant did not challenge that order by appeal or review, and it attained finality.

After the price of the confiscated food grains was paid, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 5035 of 2020 seeking interest under Section 6-C(2) of the Act.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that the appellant had not sought interest in the first writ proceeding and that the price had already been paid.

Whether the appellant could maintain a subsequent writ petition seeking interest on the price of confiscated food grains when the price had already been awarded in an earlier writ proceeding?

Whether the Division Bench could grant interest under Section 6-C(2) of the Essential Commodities Act when the earlier writ order, which did not expressly grant interest, had attained finality?

The Court applied Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which empowers confiscation of seized essential commodities, and Section 6-C(2), under which, where an order of confiscation is modified or annulled, or the concerned person is acquitted, and return of the seized commodity is not possible, the person is to be paid its price as if the commodity had been sold to the Government, together with reasonable interest from the date of seizure.

The Court further applied the principles against splitting a claim and against reopening or circumventing a final judicial order: a party cannot pursue relief in piecemeal fashion, and a subsequent proceeding is not maintainable where the earlier writ proceeding has finally determined the relevant relief or subject matter.

A final order cannot be overridden by a coordinate or appellate bench in subsequent proceedings merely because a relief was not expressly granted.

Although the appellant had included a claim for 18% interest in the prayer of the earlier writ petition, the Single Judge, while directing payment of the price of the confiscated food grains, did not grant interest.

The appellant neither appealed against that order nor sought its review, and the order consequently became final.

The Division Bench held that the appellant could not revive the omitted or unsuccessful claim for interest through a second writ petition after receiving the principal amount.

The Court treated the subsequent proceeding as an impermissible attempt to claim relief piecemeal and held that it could not override the final earlier order, even though Section 6-C(2) referred to payment of reasonable interest.

The Court therefore did not decide afresh the appellant’s contention regarding the statutory entitlement to interest or the alleged exemption of rice and wheat under the Bihar amendment.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, and no further relief or direction was granted.