WP(C)/24099/2024 of M/S MOURYA RAJ ENTERPRISES Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 3 September 2026

ORDER

Order No. 03.09.2026

05. (Through hybrid Mode)

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

“Under these circumstances the Petitioners pray that your Lordship's would be graciously pleased to admit the Writ Petition, issue Rule NISI, calling upon the Opp. Parties specifically Opp. Party No. 2 and 4 to show cause as to why the act of confiscation without hearing the Petitioner and subsequent efforts made to auction of the consignment of Ragi without considering the documents produced before them shall not be interfered with and they shall not be further directed to release the said consignment in favour of the Petitioner and if the said Opp. Parties fails to show cause or show insufficient cause, then the act of confiscation of the consignment of Ragi and the subsequent efforts made for auction of the same may be interfered with and the same may be quashed on the grounds that the said Opp. Parties have deliberately flouted the established principles of law and has not followed the principles of natural justice and have exercised a power not vested in them by the statute.

And further pleased to pass any other Writ/Writs, Order/Orders, Direction/Directions as would be deemed fit and proper to grant justice to the Petitioners and to allow the Writ Application with cost throughout.”

2. Registry has pointed out that pursuant to order dated 23.10.2024, no additional affidavit by Opposite Party No.4 has been received.

3. Perused the order dated 23.10.2024. From the purport of the order, it is apparent that learned counsel for the Petitioner had sought for leave of the Court to file additional affidavit and not the Opposite Party No.4. The learned counsel for the State had prayed for four weeks time to file counter affidavit and counter affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 has been filed.

4. Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that instead of filing an additional affidavit, the Petitioner has filed CONTC No. 776 of 2025 against the Collector and Inspector of Supplies, Nabarangpur for violation of order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court where noting the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the seized millets had been auctioned but the auction purchaser is yet to act further, this Court had directed that status quo as on date regarding auction of the seized millets be maintained till the next date, but the millets were released in favour of the auction purchaser.

5. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a firm having its registered office in Jeypore and is in the business of bulk selling, buying of food materials which includes packaged as well as raw pulses and cereals. It has placed an order before the Opposite Party No. 6-Radhika

Traders for supply of 355 quintals of ragi for which the payment had been made on 16.04.2024. Subsequent to the procurement of 355 quintals of ragi, the Petitioner-firm was approached by the Opp. Party No. 5 for sale of 350 quintals of ragi in the town of Nabarangpur. Accordingly, 350 quintals of ragi was sold to the Opposite Party No.5 for a consideration amount of Rs. 12,26,750/- and against which a bill of supply was also issued by the Petitioner in favour of the said Opp. Party. No. 5. The said consignment of Ragi (Millet) (the quantity has not been stated) was loaded on to a truck bearing RTO Registration No. AP 34 VE 1578 by the Opp. Party No. 6 and was to be transported to the office of the Petitioner-Firm. But on account of the sale in favour of the Opp. Party No. 5, the driver was directed to first go towards Nabarangpur and deliver the 350 quintals to the Opp. Party No. 5 and the rest 5 quintals would be delivered in the stockyard of the Petitioner at Jeypore. The photocopy of the bill of supply executed in favour of the Opp. Party No. 5 was also sent to them. On 19.04.2024, when the truck carrying the Millets reached Nabarangpur and was being weighed in the RMC Campus, the Opp. Party No. 4 and other authorities taking advantage of the fact that the driver can neither speak nor understand Odia seized the vehicle and the Millets on the allegation that the said transport of Ragi (Millet) was being done in contravention of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Report dtd. 20.04.2024 in this regard was submitted to Collector making false allegation against the Petitioner and the documents provided by the driver and Opposite Party No.5. Thereafter

Opposite Party No.2 has issued a notice dated 23.04.2024 to the Petitioner regarding initiation of E.C. No. 1/2024 on the allegation that the consignment was being transported without valid documents which is in contravention of the Act as well as the OPDS, Control Order 2016. After receiving the notice, the sole proprietor as well as the driver of the vehicle has submitted their individual claims dtd. 24.04.2024 in respect of the Ragi (Millet) as well as the truck praying for their release. The applications filed by the Petitioner and driver of the truck have been annexed as Annexure-5 and 6 respectively to this writ petition. On 08.05.2024, the claim of the driver for release of the vehicle has been allowed subject to deposit of an undertaking and a surety bond. But in respect of the claim pertaining to release of ragi, it was observed that it would be heard and disposed of upon receipt of the final report from the Opposite Party No.4.

6. Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, learned counsel submits that the proceeding before the Collector is without any authority as millet is not an essential commodity and the Opposite Parties were trying to auction the millets at throw away prices without hearing the Petitioner and without considering the documents provided by him. On 30.09.2024, when the matter was listed, it was brought to the notice of the Court that auction of the millets had been held but the successful auction purchaser was to act further and considering the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court as an interim measure had “ordered to maintain status quo as on date regarding auction of the seized millets till the next date." But this order has been violated for which CONTC No. 776 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner, which is sub judice. Although it is not averred in the petition, Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that E.C. No. 01/2024 is not being proceeded with by the Opposite Party No.2.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 stating that on receiving message from reliable sources regarding transportation of the millets on 19.04.2024, the Inspector of Supplies along with the Additional Civil Supplies Officer, Nabarangpur had rushed to the RMC market yard to ascertain the genuineness of the message and after arrival at spot, they found that the vehicle bearing No.AP39VE-1578 loaded with Ragi and the driver could not produce any documents in support of the transportation of the said ragi from Karnataka to Nabarangpur. So presuming that the ragi had been illegally transported, they seized the same and weighed the stock of ragi at weighbridge and unloaded the bags of ragi (650 numbers) weighing 345.30 quintals. On report of the I.O., the Collector, Navarangpur initiated proceedings bearing E.C. No. 01/2024 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and issued show cause notice to the said driver as to why the ragi would not be confiscated to the Government and also directed to attend the Court along with reply to show cause notice. On 08.05.2024, the Driver, M. Nagaraju appeared along with one Sri Jami Govind Rao and they filed two petitions, one praying for release of Ragi stock and another for release of seized vehicle. On 08.05.2024 after hearing, the Collector, Nabarangpuror directed for release of truck on furnishing surety bond, required land/ property documents worth of Rs.41 lakhs but stated that the claim for release of ragi shall be disposed of after getting a final report from the I.O. Thereafter on 03.08.2024, on the basis of prayer of the I.O. to pass an interim order in respect of the ragi which is an essential commodity and long storage may deteriorate or reduce its value, the Collector, Nabarangpur passed an order for interim disposal of the seized Ragi in favour of the I.O. with a direction to sell the same in open market and deposit the sale proceeds in the proper head of Govt. Account (Refundable Account). It has also been stated that on 26.09.2024, the ragi was sold to one Lokesh Bhatta for an amount of Rs.8,75,133/- and the said amount has been deposited to the Refundable head of Govt. Account. It is also stated that the auction sale had been completed on 29.09.2024 before passing of the interim order by this Court and on 08.10.2024, the Collector, Nabarangpur directed the I.O. to submit the final report with immediate effect and necessary steps are being taken by the I.O. to submit the final report before the Collector, Nabarangpur in E.C. Case No.01 of 2024 for early disposal of the case.

8. A rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner mainly stating about violation of the status quo order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court in as much as the full auction amount was deposited by the auction purchaser on 05.10.2024 which is after the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court. It has also been stated that Opposite Party No.2 has resorted to falsehood by

saying that no documents were produced before him in support of transportation of ragi and that the order could not have been passed for disposal of the ragi before submission of final report in the case.

9. In view of the fact that EC Case No. 01/2024 is pending before the Collector, Nabarangpur and the ragi (millets) have already been auctioned and the auction amount deposited in the refundable head of Government account, the prayer in the writ application has been virtually rendered injunction, I am therefore not inclined to go into the merits of the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding illegal seizure of the vehicle and the ragi and since CONTC No. 776 of 2025 is pending where violation of order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court has been alleged, I am also not inclined to go into the allegations regarding violation of the interim order of this Court, which will be gone into in CONTC No. 776 of 2025.

10. As regards E.C. Case No. 01/2024, it is apparent that show cause reply has not yet been filed by the Petitioner. For proper consideration of the case, a show cause reply is necessary. Hence, four weeks time is granted to the Petitioner to file a show cause reply along with supporting documents.

11. The writ application is disposed of directing the Opposite Party No.2-the Collector, Nabarangpur to dispose of E.C. Case No. 01/2024 in accordance with law after considering the show cause reply and giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner puspa and other parties.

12. It is also made clear that merit of the contentions of the Petitioner regarding illegal seizure of the vehicle and sale of ragi have not been considered by this Court and shall be considered by the Collector in E.C. Case No. 01/2024.

13. It also goes without saying that the Petitioner is at liberty to question the legality of the seizure and the sale of ragi in E.C. Case No. 01/2024. The entitlement of the Petitioner to the sale proceeds shall also be considered by the Collector in the said proceeding.

14. Since the matter is pending since 2024, it is directed that the E.C. Case No. 01/20 shall be disposed of within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of show cause reply by the Petitioner but after affording a chance of hearing to the Petitioner and the other parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

15. I.A. No. 12600 of 2024 stands disposed of.

16. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(Savitri Ratho)

Judge

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 10-Sep-2026 10:26:30 Signature Not Verified