Rejection of release under Section 6E must be challenged through the statutory remedy under Section 6C.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Hariyali Indane Gramin Vitrak, claimed ownership of 304 gas cylinders seized along with a vehicle in connection with Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 550 of 2018 and E.C. Case No. 27/2018–19 under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

In an earlier writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 21404 of 2018, the petitioner had been granted liberty to seek release of the cylinders under Section 6E of the Act before the District Collector.

The owner of the seized vehicle had separately filed C.W.J.C. No. 21558 of 2018 and obtained similar liberty; although the vehicle was subsequently released, the request for release of the gas cylinders was rejected by the Collector by order dated 11 October 2019 in E.C. Case No. 27/2018–19.

The petitioner challenged that rejection and sought release of the cylinders during the pendency of the proceedings.

Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of release of the seized gas cylinders was maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy was available under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory remedy for release of the 304 seized gas cylinders before the competent authority.

The Court applied the statutory scheme of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Section 6C provides a remedy before the Judicial Authority against an order relating to confiscation of seized essential commodities, with an opportunity of hearing to the affected person.

The Court also referred to the petitioner’s earlier liberty to seek release under Section 6E of the Act, which had led to consideration of the release application by the District Collector.

The governing principle applied was that the existence of an effective alternative statutory remedy ordinarily warrants relegating the petitioner to that remedy instead of adjudicating the matter directly in writ jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s cylinders had been seized under proceedings arising from the Essential Commodities Act and that the Collector had rejected their release after the earlier writ proceedings.

Since the respondents specifically pointed out the statutory remedy under Section 6C, the Court declined to examine the merits of the entitlement to release in the writ petition.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 6C, which would consider the matter after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Thus, the Court treated the statutory remedy as the appropriate forum for determining the petitioner’s claim concerning the seized cylinders.

The petitioner was directed to file an appropriate application under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, within six weeks from receipt of the judgment.

The concerned authority was directed to pass an appropriate order within two months from the filing of that application, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.