Writ relief is declined where an alternative confiscation remedy under the Essential Commodities Act remains unavailed.

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of a Bolero Pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No. UP57AT0208. The vehicle was seized in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 246 of 2017, registered under Sections 420, 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, after forty bags containing packets of food products were allegedly recovered from it.

The petitioner asserted that he had no knowledge of the articles loaded in the vehicle, which was operated through a driver. His earlier application before the SDJM, Gopalganj, seeking release of the vehicle had been rejected for want of jurisdiction, and a previous writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file a civil writ petition.

The respondents stated that charge-sheets had been submitted against the persons involved and subsequently against the petitioner, and that a proposal for confiscation of the vehicle had been sent to the competent authority.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, contending that it had remained at the police station since 2017 and was losing value.

Whether the High Court should directly examine the petitioner’s claim for release of the seized vehicle in exercise of its writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy was available before the competent confiscating authority under the Essential Commodities Act.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to approach the competent authority and raise his claim for release of the vehicle in the confiscation proceeding.

The Court applied the statutory scheme governing seizure and confiscation of property involved in offences under the Essential Commodities Act, including Section 7 of that Act, and the principle that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court is ordinarily not exercised when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available.

The competent authority must consider the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court noted that the vehicle had been seized in connection with an alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and that the respondents had reported that a confiscation proposal had been submitted to the competent authority.

Since the petitioner had not yet approached that authority, the Court held that he had an available alternative remedy in the confiscation proceeding.

Consequently, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s defence— including his claim of ownership and lack of knowledge of the seized articles—at the writ stage. Instead, it directed that those pleas, including the request for release, be raised before the competent authority.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach that authority and raise his claim for release. The authority was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law, after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.