Statutory appeal under Section 6C barred writ jurisdiction; delay directed to be condoned under Section 5, Limitation Act.

The petitioner, proprietor of Maa Parwati/Ma Parbati Rice Mill, challenged two confiscation orders passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar under Section 6A(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

In CWJC No. 8167 of 2023, the order dated 24 September 2021 concerned the seizure of 468 bags of rice allegedly purchased from Vyapar Mandal PACS for open-market sale after being declared sub-standard for public distribution.

In CWJC No. 13676 of 2023, the order dated 29 October 2021 concerned the seizure of 155 quintals and 75 kilograms of rice, which the petitioner claimed to have purchased from Lakshmi Rice Mill under bills dated 25 March 2019.

Since both petitions involved identical issues, they were heard and decided by a common order.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act.

Whether the writ petitions challenging the confiscation orders under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act were maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 6C.

Whether the High Court could determine, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner’s contention that the seizure was legally justified and that the police had found the case to be a mistake of fact.

Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeals could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides a statutory appeal to a judicial authority against an order of confiscation under Section 6A; the appellate authority may confirm, modify, or annul the confiscation order after hearing the aggrieved person.

Where an effective alternative statutory remedy exists, the High Court ordinarily declines to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly where disputed factual questions require determination by the competent appellate authority.

The Court further directed that the delay in filing the appeals be considered under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The petitioner’s challenge was directed against confiscation orders passed under Section 6A, for which Section 6C expressly provided an appellate remedy.

The Court held that the petitioner’s assertions regarding the lawful purchase, quality, and possession of the rice, as well as the police conclusion that the case was a mistake of fact, involved factual matters that could not appropriately be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Although the limitation period for filing the statutory appeals had expired, that circumstance did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy; instead, the competent authority was directed to consider condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The petitioner was directed to file appeals before the concerned authority within four weeks from receipt of the order.

The appellate authority was directed to condone and consider the delay in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of filing.

All interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.