# S'lA'DI OP WEST BERGAL & ORS v. CALCDrTA llAllWARE S'l'Olll!S & ORS

- **Citation:** [1986] 1 S.C.R. 364
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-02-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 627 of 1986
- **Bench:** A.P. Sen, Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-la-di-op-west-bergal-ors-v-calcdrta-llallware-s-l-olll-s-ors-9264
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Ad interim exparte
orders - Grant of - Restraint and circumspection - Necessary.
....,.
600 metric tonnes of tin plates worth about Ila. 60 laths
were seized frDll the respondent-firm. Prosecution wu launched -
C
by the State Government against the respondents under ss. 7 and
8 of the Essential eo->clities Act 1955 for violation of
parqraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and
Prices of Essential ColllllOdities Order 1977 and under sa.1208
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Show cauae notices for
confiscation of the seized goods were alao issued by the
D
Additional Collector under a.6A of the Act.
--
E
F
In the Writ Petition under Article 226 before the High
Court the respondents moved an application for release of the
seized goods which wu rejected by a Single Judge. In appeal
the Divi•ion Bench set aside the interlocutory order of the
Single Judge and directed the release of the seized goods to
the respondent• on their furnishing of a bank guarantee of
lla.5 laldla in the form of fixed deposit recepits and also on
furnishing sec1irity of illllovable property being O. 71 acre of
land aituate at Police Station Titaghur District 24 pargana.
Allowing the appeal of the State to this Court,
lllU>i 1. Although the powers of the High Court under
Art.226 are far and wide and the Judges mat ever be vigilant
to protect the citizens against arbitrary executive action,
noaetheleH,
the
Judges
have
a
constructive
role
and
G
therefore, there is always the need to use such extensive
powers with due circumpection. There has to be in the larger
public interest an element of self-ordained restraint. It was
diatresaing that despite a long line of decisions of Supreme
Court
deprecating
the
cursory
manner
of
passing
suc11itinterlocutory orders for the mere asking, the High Court -
H
STATE v, CALCllTrA llARIMARE· STORES
365
should have passed the impugned order in the 1118111U!r that it
did. [370 C-ll; 367 ~]
2. 'lbe sd interf.a order of the Division llem:h of the
High Court was illegal and invalid. The result of the order
A
was that the respondents under threat of contempt secured
B
release of valuable seized uterial practically furnishing
little or uo security. The observations of the Division Bench
which bad the effect of prejudgiug the whole issue before the
Siugle Judge who 'IJU seized of the wr-it petitiou, as alao
foreclosiug the trial of the respondents for c:omieaiou of the
alleged offences bad also uo legality and propriety. [367 C;
367 G-H; 368 A]
C
Sillgari Jtmidpa\tcy • on. v. Au'lmdn ·nu • On.,
[1984] 2 s.c.c. 436; Aaaiatant Collector of Central l:a;ia,
Chndn lqar lfeat lleDgal v. llllll1op India r.t. ·Ltd. • Ora.,
[1985) 1 S.C.C. 260; State of lajatlum ' Ora. Vo '8/a. llllaika
l'l:CljleA"tiea & Anr., [1985) 3 S.C,C. 217; Sil:lgari JtmlcfpaJity,
D
ntaaimr hper llil1a eo. Ltd. v. State of 0r1ua. [1983)
2
s.c.c. 433; lJaion of India •· OnaJ. lfoellen ll11l8 Ltd.,
[1984) 2 S.C.C. 646; IJaion of India v. Jain Slmdh V_,at.i
Ltd., C,A.No. 11450/PJ and 9-ria Tndfng Co. Pwt. I.td. •• .
S. Saoiael, [1984] 4 s.c.c. 666; relied upon.

## Text

364
A
B
S'lA'D! OP WEST BERGAL & ORS.
v.
CALCDrTA llAllWARE S'l'Olll!S & ORS.
FEBRUARY 20, 1986
[A.P. SEN AND B,C, RAY, JJ,]
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Ad interim exparte
orders - Grant of - Restraint and circumspection - Necessary.
....,.
600 metric tonnes of tin plates worth about Ila. 60 laths
were seized frDll the respondent-firm. Prosecution wu launched -
C
by the State Government against the respondents under ss. 7 and
8 of the Essential eo->clities Act 1955 for violation of
parqraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and
Prices of Essential ColllllOdities Order 1977 and under sa.1208
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Show cauae notices for
confiscation of the seized goods were alao issued by the
D
Additional Collector under a.6A of the Act.
--
E
F
In the Writ Petition under Article 226 before the High
Court the respondents moved an application for release of the
seized goods which wu rejected by a Single Judge. In appeal
the Divi•ion Bench set aside the interlocutory order of the
Single Judge and directed the release of the seized goods to
the respondent• on their furnishing of a bank guarantee of
lla.5 laldla in the form of fixed deposit recepits and also on
furnishing sec1irity of illllovable property being O. 71 acre of
land aituate at Police Station Titaghur District 24 pargana.
Allowing the appeal of the State to this Court,
lllU>i 1. Although the powers of the High Court under
Art.226 are far and wide and the Judges mat ever be vigilant
to protect the citizens against arbitrary executive action,
noaetheleH,
the
Judges
have
a
constructive
role
and
G
therefore, there is always the need to use such extensive
powers with due circumpection. There has to be in the larger
public interest an element of self-ordained restraint. It was
diatresaing that despite a long line of decisions of Supreme
Court
deprecating
the
cursory
manner
of
passing
suc11itinterlocutory orders for the mere asking, the High Court -
H
STATE v, CALCllTrA llARIMARE· STORES
365
should have passed the impugned order in the 1118111U!r that it
did. [370 C-ll; 367 ~]
2. 'lbe sd interf.a order of the Division llem:h of the
High Court was illegal and invalid. The result of the order
A
was that the respondents under threat of contempt secured
B
release of valuable seized uterial practically furnishing
little or uo security. The observations of the Division Bench
which bad the effect of prejudgiug the whole issue before the
Siugle Judge who 'IJU seized of the wr-it petitiou, as alao
foreclosiug the trial of the respondents for c:omieaiou of the
alleged offences bad also uo legality and propriety. [367 C;
367 G-H; 368 A]
C
Sillgari Jtmidpa\tcy • on. v. Au'lmdn ·nu • On.,
[1984] 2 s.c.c. 436; Aaaiatant Collector of Central l:a;ia,
Chndn lqar lfeat lleDgal v. llllll1op India r.t. ·Ltd. • Ora.,
[1985) 1 S.C.C. 260; State of lajatlum ' Ora. Vo '8/a. llllaika
l'l:CljleA"tiea & Anr., [1985) 3 S.C,C. 217; Sil:lgari JtmlcfpaJity,
D
ntaaimr hper llil1a eo. Ltd. v. State of 0r1ua. [1983)
2
s.c.c. 433; lJaion of India •· OnaJ. lfoellen ll11l8 Ltd.,
[1984) 2 S.C.C. 646; IJaion of India v. Jain Slmdh V_,at.i
Ltd., C,A.No. 11450/PJ and 9-ria Tndfng Co. Pwt. I.td. •• .
S. Saoiael, [1984] 4 s.c.c. 666; relied upon.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 627 of
1986,
From the Judgment and Order dated 11th December, 1985 of
the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 4053 of 1985,
D.N. Mukherjee and H.K. Puri for the Appellants.
Bhola Nath Sen, Bhasker Sen, B.P. Singh, v. Sheker, S,
Roy and L.P. Agarwala for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. We had allowed the appeal at the conclus.ion of
hearing of January 31, 1986. We now proceed to give the
reasons therefor.
In this appeal by special leave the short point is as to
the legality and propriety of an ad-interim order dated
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] l s.c.R.
December ll, 1985 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta
High Court consistiug ·of R.N. Pyne and Aj it Kumar Sen Gupta,
JJ, setting aside an interlocutory order of Padma Khastgir, J,
dated November 6, 1985, By the impugned order, the learned
Judges have directed the release to the respondents of more or
less 600 metric tonnes of tin plates which, according to the
State Government, are worth nearly about Rs,60 lakhs, seized
from them for alleged contravention of item 24, schedule l to
the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential
c.,_,.iities
Order,
1997
and
which,
according
to
the
respondents, are nothing but waste material, on condition set
out by them, namely, on the furnishing of bank guarantee of
Rs.5 lakhs in the form of fixed deposit receipts and also on
furnishing security of immovable property being 0.71 acre of
land situate at Police Station Titaghur, District 24 Pargana.
The learned Judges while making the impugned order have
unfortunately made certain observations which seek to prejudge
the issues involved in the prosecution launched against the
respondents by the State Government for committing alleged
offences punishable under ss.7 and 8·of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of the mandatory provisions of
paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and
Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and of having
comuiltted alleged offences punishable under ss.1208 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They have gone to the extent of
observing that the notices for confiscation of the seized
goods were issued by the Additional Collector, 24 Paragana
Alipore under s.6A of the Act without any basis in that they
do not answer the description of tin plates, tin plates waste
waste or defective tin free steel sheets and therefore were
not essential commodities within the meaning of s.2(a) of the
Act and tbe said Order issued thereunder.
Looking to the seriousness of the charges
and
the
circumstances attendant upon the seizure of the huge quantity
G
of tin plates, the learned Single Judge had very rightly and
properly refused to grant the application for release of the
seized goods. It is rather surprising that the learned Judges
in hearing an appeal from an
interlocutory order should have
passed the impugned order directing release of the seized
goods without affording an opportunity to the State Government_.rH
to file a return to the writ petition. There is material on
STATE v. CALCUTTA HARWARE STORES [SEN, J.]
367
record to show that the seized goods are essential commodities, namely, Notification No. S0.508(E)/ESS/lron & Steel '-2A
dated 1.7.1985 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Steel, Mines & Coal, and examination report dated November 13,
1985 by the Appraiser (Metal Expert).
We
are greatly distressed that the learned Judges
despite a long line of decisions of this Court starting from
Siliguri lbrlcipality & Ors. v. Amalendu Das & Ors. [1984] 2
s.c.c. 436 to Assistant Collector of Central Excise, <llarulan
Nagar West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. & Ors. [!985] l s.c.c.
260,
down to State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. K/s Swaika
Properties & Anr. [1985] 3 S.C.C. 217 deprecating the cursory
manner of passing such interlocutory orders for the mere
asking, should have passed the impugned order in the manner
that they did. It seens that the pronouncements of this Court
have had little effect on them. The result "of this has been
that the respondents under threat of contempt secured release
~~ of such valuable seized material practically furnishing little
or no security. We are really amazed that the State Government
-1
should have been compelled to release the goods as per the
directions of the learned Judges. What makes it worse is that
the respondents are facing prosecutions under s.3 read with
ss. 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act as also under
ss.!20B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and have also been
served with a notice by the Additional Collector under s.6A of
the Act to show cause why the seized material should not be
confiscated to Government. It is needless to stress that the
question whether the
seize~ goods answer the description of
tin plates, tin plates waste waste or waste material etc. or
~ whether the respondents had committed a contravention of
paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and
\·
Prices of Essential Commodities Order issued under s.3(1) of
the Act, which is an offence punishable under ss.7 and 8, are
all questions to be gone into and tried before the learned
Special Judge, 24 Paragana, Alipore before whom the trial is
pending. That apart, the observations Call in question the
validity of the action of the Additional Collector in serving
a notice of confiscation under s,6A of the Act with respect to
the seized goods. We do not see legality and propriety of
making these observations by the learned Judges which have
-- the effect of prejudging the whole issue before the learned
Single Judge who ts seized of the writ petition, as also
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 1 s.c.R.
forec.losing the trial of the respondents for commission of the
alleged offences.
In somewhat similar circumstances, Chinnappa Reddy, J.
speaking for the Court in llulilop India Ltd. 's case, after
referring to the earlier decisions in Siligud Municipality,
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd • v. State of Orissa [1983] 2
S.C.C. 433 Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. [1984] 2
S.C.C. 646, Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspsti Ltd. C.A.
No.11450/83, anci Samaria& Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. s. Sallllel
[1984]
4 S.C.C. 666, expressed strong disapproval of the
practice prevailing in the High Court of granting such
ad-interim orders which practically have the ef feet of the
grant of the main relief in the petition under Art. 226 of the
constitution, and observed :
"We have come across cases where the collection of
public revenue has been seriously jeopardised and
budgets of governments and Local Authorities aff irmatively prejudiced to the point of precariousness
consequent upon interim orders made by courts. In
fact, instances have come to our knowledge where
Governments have been forced to explore further
.sources for raising revenue, sources which they
would rather well leave along in the public interest, because of the stays granted by courts. We
have come across cases where an entire Service is
left in a stay of flutter and unrest because of
interim orders passed by courts, leaving the work
they are supposed to do in a state of suspended
animation. We have· come across cases where buses
- and lorries are being run under orders of court
;
though they were either denied permits or their
-;
permits had been cancelled or suspended by Transport Authorities. We have come across cases where
liquor shops are being run under interim orders of
court. We have come across cases where the collection of monthly rentals payable by excise contractors has been stayed with the result that at the
end of the year the contractor has paid nothing but
made his profits from the shop and walked out. We
have come across cases where dealers in food grain.a •
and essential commodities have been allowed to take -
STATE v. CALClITTA HAR!MARE STORES [SEN, J.]
369
back the stocks seized from them as if to , permit
them to continue to indulge in the very practices
which were to be prevented by the seizure. We have
come across cases where .land reform and important
welfare legislations have been stayed by courts.
A
Incalculable harm has been done by such interim
B
orders. All this is not to say that interim orders
may never be made against public authorities. There
are, of course, cases which demand that interim
orders should be made in the interests of justice.
Where gross violations of the law and injustices
are perpetrated or are about to be perpetrated, it
is the bounden duty of the court .to intervene and
c
give appropriate interim relief. In cases where
denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a
citizen's faith in the' impartiality of public
administration, a court may well be justified in
granting interim relief against public au.thority.
D
But since the law presumes that public authorities
function properly and bona fide with due regard to
the public interest, a court must be circumspect in··
granting interim orders of far-reaching dimensions
or orders causing administrative, burdonsome inconvenience or orders preventing collection of public
E
revenue fot no better reason than that the parties
have come to the court alleging prejudice, inconvenience or: harm and that a prim facie case has
been shown. -There can be and there are no hard and
fast rules. -But prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for. There are several other
F
vital considerations apart from the existence of a
prims facie case. There is the question of balance
of convenience. There is the question of_ irreparable injury. There is the question of the public
interest. There are many such factors worthy of
consideration."
Quite recently, this court in Swaika 'Properties' case
reiterated
"It is to be deeply regretted that despite a series
of decisions of this Court deprecattng the practice
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
370
. '
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19861 l s.c.R.
prevalent in the High Court of passing such
interlocutory orders for the llM!re asking, the
learned
Single
Judge
should
have
passed
the
impugned ad interim ex parte prohibitory order the
effect of which, as the learned Attorney-General
rightly complains, was virtually to bring to a
standstill a developllM!nt
sche.., of the Urban
ImprovellM!nt
Trust,
Jaipur
viz,
Civil
Lines
Extension Sche..,, irrespective of the fact whether
or
not
the
High
Court
had
sny territorial
jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution. Such arbitrary exercise of
power by the High Court at the public expense
reacts against the developllM!nt and prosperit:y of
the country and is clearly detrillM!ntal to the
national interest."
Although the power of the High Court under Art.226 of the
Constitution are far and wide and the Judges must ever be
vigilant to protect the citizens against arbitrary executive
action, nonetheless, the Judges have a constructive role and
therefore there is always the need to use such extensive
powers with due circumspection. There has to be in the larger
public interest sn elellM!nt of self-ordained restraint. We hope
and· trust that the High Court would hereafter use its powers
to grant
such ad-interim l!X1>&rte
orders with greater
circumspection.
The appeal must therefore succeed and is allowed. The
order passed by the Division Bench dated December 11, 1985 is
set aside and that of the learned Single Judge dated November
'
.
6, 1985 dismissing the application for release of the seized
goods is restored. We direct that the High Court shall take
illlnediate steps to recover back the seized property from the
respondents including the two vehicles bearing registration
nos. USY 6342 and WBQ 6688 if they have been delivered in
pursuance of the orders passed by the learned Judges to
respondents. The respondents shall pay the costs of the
appellants. Costs quantified at Rs.5,000,
'
A.P.J.
Appeal allowed.
...