SHRUSHTI AGRO and COLD STORAGE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.107604/2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHRUSHTI AGRO & COLD STORAGE, PLOT NO.SPL, Q-1, KSSIDC, KANBARGI INDUSTRIAL AREA, AUTO NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER: SHRI.AMOL S/O VIDYADHAR MOHANDAS, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO:1202, SAHYADRI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-591 108. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SANTHOSH P PUJARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI.SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4, TO PRESERVE THE SEIZED GOODS BEARING PROPERTY PROFILE NO.28/2018 DATED:27.02.2018, VIDE ANENXURE-B-2 UNTIL THE DISPOSAL OF THE MAL MARUTI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.45/2018 OR THE RELEASE OF THE SEIZED GOODS VIDE ANNEXURE-B-2 TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

3 ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner is a partnership firm doing business of cold storage i.e. trimming and packing of meat/beef, seasonal fruits, etc. The petitioner-firm was seized by the respondent-police in Crime No.45/2018 for alleged violation of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and other provisions of IPC and the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964. It is an admitted fact that the sized goods are in the petitioner premises under the control and supervision of learned JMFC-II, Belagavi and the Investigating Officer in Crime No.45/2018. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner premises is under the control of the learned JMFC-II, Belagavi and the Investigating Officer, the goods are required to be preserved in the cold storage for which the power supply is most essential. The

4 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6-Electricity Company has been threatening the petitioner of disconnection of power supply on the ground that the electricity charges have not been paid by the petitioner-firm. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bills raised by the respondent-Electricity company is to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs and in the present condition the petitioner is unable to pay the electricity charges. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner has already moved the learned JMFC-II, Belagavi for release of the seized goods in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.102964/2018. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no sooner the petitioner gets the goods released from the custody of the Magistrate Court, he will be able to mobilize the required funds and pay the bills raised by the respondent-Electricity Company. In this regard, the learned counsel has filed an affidavit of

5 Sri.Amol Vidyadhar Mohandas, who is the partner of the petitioner-firm and the affidavit is sworn on 23.11.2018. Narrating the background of the matter and the predicament faced by the petitioner-firm, the partner of the petitioner-firm in the affidavit undertakes to pay the entire electricity charges at Annexure-H and also future electricity bills that may be raised by the respondent- Electricity Company within a period of 30 days from the date of release order that would be passed by the learned Magistrate i.e. JMFC-II, Belagavi. 3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent-Electricity Company would submit that the petitioner has not made any representation to the respondent-Electricity Company. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer has written a letter dated 25.11.2018 to respondent No.6-Assistant Executive Engineer requesting him not to disconnect the power supply as the goods stored in the petitioner premises

6 need to be protected since the matter is at large before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of the petitioner-firm and that of the respondent-Electricity Company could be protected if the respondent- Electricity Company is directed to consider the affidavit filed by the partner of the petitioner-firm and the letter dated 25.11.2018 written by the Investigating Officer to the respondent-Electricity Company. Since there is an undertaking given by the partner of the petitioner-firm, respondent No.6 could consider granting time to the petitioner-firm for payment of the electricity bills within stipulated time. A copy of the affidavit dated 23.11.2018 along with the letter dated 25.11.2018 written by the Investigating Officer to respondent No.6 is directed to be handed over to respondent No.6-Assistant Executive

7 Engineer and thereafter he may pass suitable orders in the light of the observations made by this Court. Respondent No.6 is also directed to provide at least seven days notice to the petitioner-firm before disconnecting the power supply. 5. In the light of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/- JUDGE