Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Adjudicate Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Deterioration of Seized Foodgrains

The petitioner, a licensed PDS dealer since 1991, was directed by the Block Supply Officer on April 2, 2015, to take custody of wheat and rice seized in Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 384 of 2014

The petitioner alleged the foodgrains were handed over in a rotten condition on April 11, 2015

In E.C. Case No. 06/2015-16, the Collector directed that these grains be sold and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury

After his PDS license was cancelled in 2016, the petitioner received Memo No. 95 dated November 20, 2018, ordering him to deposit the value of the seized grains within 24 hours or face an FIR

The petitioner challenged this order, claiming a lack of natural justice and citing the rotten state of the grains

1. Whether the impugned order directing the deposit of funds was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice due to lack of a show-cause notice

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can adjudicate on the disputed factual condition of the foodgrains at the time of delivery

The court primarily relied on the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It applied the principle that High Courts should refrain from adjudicating "disputed questions of fact" in writ proceedings

The court also respected the statutory authority of the Collector under the Essential Commodities (EC) Act (implied via E.C. Case No. 06/2015-16) to direct the disposal of perishable seized goods and the recovery of sale proceeds

The court found that the petitioner was entrusted with the foodgrains for safe custody and was legally obligated to comply with the Collector’s order to sell the stock and deposit the proceeds

While the petitioner argued that the grains were received in a rotten state and he had sought instructions, the respondents produced evidence of prior communications (Memo No. 86) being served upon him

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s claim regarding the condition of the grains constituted a "disputed question of fact" which cannot be examined in detail under writ jurisdiction

Furthermore, the court noted that the impugned order was not an isolated act of malice but a consequential direction arising from lawful confiscation proceedings

As the petitioner failed to prove any jurisdictional error or violation of statutory provisions, the court found no grounds for interference

It held that the impugned order dated November 20, 2018, was valid and issued by a competent authority in accordance with the law

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and any pending Interlocutory Applications were disposed of