Vehicle release cannot require a Class-I Government officer as surety; close-relative surety suffices.

The petitioner’s commercial truck bearing Registration No. BR-11L-1901 was seized in connection with proceedings under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and various provisions of the IPC.

The petitioner earlier approached the High Court in CWJC No. 8611 of 2016, pursuant to which the Collector, Bhagalpur was directed to release the vehicle on furnishing sufficient surety/security, after verification of ownership, with an undertaking to produce the vehicle whenever required.

However, by order dated 27 September 2016 in Confiscation Case No. 86 of 2015–16, the Collector directed release subject to the condition that one surety must be a Class-I/Grade-A Government officer who would not retire within five years.

During the writ proceedings, the respondents disclosed that the petitioner had availed the statutory appellate remedy and that the District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur had set aside the Collector’s order by judgment dated 6 January 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2017; nevertheless, the District Magistrate had not passed any consequential order for release of the truck.

Whether the Collector’s condition requiring a Class-I/Grade-A Government officer to stand as surety for release of the vehicle was legally sustainable and consistent with the earlier order of the High Court?

Whether, after the Collector’s order had been set aside in appeal, the High Court should issue consequential directions for release of the truck when the District Magistrate had failed to act?

The Court applied the statutory framework governing confiscation and appeal under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, including the availability of an appeal against the Collector’s confiscation-related order before the District & Sessions Judge.

It also followed the earlier High Court direction in CWJC No. 8611 of 2016, which required release of the vehicle upon furnishing sufficient surety/security after verification of ownership, without prescribing that a Class-I/Grade-A Government officer must necessarily be a surety.

The Court further relied on the coordinate Bench decision in CWJC No. 19250 of 2016 dated 10 January 2017, under which a close relative or family member could furnish surety by filing an affidavit containing complete genealogical particulars establishing the relationship with the petitioner, instead of requiring a Class-I/Group-A Government officer.

The Court noted that the impugned Collector’s order had already been set aside by the District & Sessions Judge in the statutory appeal.

Consequently, the challenge to that order no longer required adjudication on merits; however, the petitioner’s substantive grievance remained because the truck had not been released despite the appellate decision.

The Court therefore treated the failure of the District Magistrate to pass a consequential release order as requiring judicial directions.

Applying the earlier High Court order and the analogous surety arrangement approved in CWJC No. 19250 of 2016, the Court directed that the vehicle be released on similar terms, thereby avoiding revival of the invalid requirement that a Class-I/Grade-A Government officer furnish surety.

The petitioner was directed to file an application, along with a copy of the High Court’s order, before the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur within fifteen days.

The District Magistrate was directed to release the truck within fifteen days thereafter, subject to the surety conditions prescribed in the coordinate Bench’s decision in CWJC No. 19250 of 2016, including the option of surety by a close relative or family member supported by an affidavit establishing the relationship.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and any interlocutory applications were disposed of.