Availability of Statutory Remedy of Appeal Precludes Writ Jurisdiction Against Confiscation Orders Under Essential Commodities Act

The petitioner, a rice mill owner, entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (BSFC) for milling paddy

In October 2013, a truck belonging to the petitioner, allegedly carrying rejected rice returned by the BSFC, was intercepted and seized by the police

Authorities claimed the cargo contained rice from various mills, leading to a criminal case and confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act

After nearly nine years of pendency and various interim orders, the District Magistrate, Madhubani, passed the impugned order on July 10, 2023, directing the final confiscation of the truck and the recovery of previously released sale proceeds

The petitioner challenged this order directly via a Writ Petition

Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution given the availability of a statutory appellate remedy

Whether the court should condone the delay and direct the appellate authority to hear the matter on merits

Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which mandates that any person aggrieved by a confiscation order under Section 6A may appeal to a judicial authority appointed by the State Government

Principle of "alternative efficacious remedy," which suggests that High Courts should refrain from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when a specific statutory appellate mechanism exists for resolving factual disputes

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay

The court observed that the core of the dispute—whether the seized rice was indeed rejected stock or illegally transported goods—requires an examination of factual evidence

The High Court found that the petitioner approached the Writ jurisdiction without exhausting this statutory remedy or providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing an appeal

acknowledging the petitioner's intent to seek the proper legal forum and the expiration of the limitation period, the court determined that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the petitioner to file a late appeal

The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned authority within four weeks

The court ordered the appellate authority to condone the delay and resolve the appeal within three months of its filing