ASHOK REDDY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A stock of 537 quintals of jowar was, seized from the possession of one Sri Parvatreddy son of Sidrammappa of Yelheri village, Taluk Yadgir, on the alleged contravention of the Karnataka Jowar Procurement (Levy). Order, 1966. A criminal proceeding was also launched against the said Sri Parvatreddy under the Provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in C. C. No. 557/341974 in t1w Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yadgir, which ultimately -ended in acquittal on 9-6-1976. After the acquittal, the proceeding under Section 6A of the Act which had already been initiated earlier, was taken up. During the course of the proceeding, the said Sri Parvatreddy expired and his son Sri Ashok Reddy filed an application for release of the jowar stock seized from his late father Sri Parvatreddy. The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, came to the conclusion that in view of the acquittal recorded in C. C. No. 557/3/1974 by the J. M. F. C. Yadgir and also in view of the fact that the stock seized from the farmer who Was a producer of the jowar in question, the alleged contravention of the Karnataka Jowar Procurement (Levy) Order, 1966 was not made out, therefore, the stock of jowar so seized was not liable to be confiscated. But, on the question as to whom the stock should be released, the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that no decision can be taken in the proceeding under Section 6A of the Act, as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased Parvatreddy; therefore, the stock cannot be released in favour of Sri Ashoka Reddy. Accordingly, he refused to release the stock of Jowar.

(2.) A proceeding under Section 6A of the Act, is intended to confiscate the essential commodity seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of the Am if the contravention of the said order is proved and also to confiscate any package covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. Section 6B of the Act further provides that no order confiscating any essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under Section 6A of the Act, unless the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized, is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which the confiscation is proposed to be made and also after giving him an opportunity for making a representation in Writing and further after giving him a reason able opportunity of being 'heard in the matter. The proceeding may or rnay not end in confiscation of the essential commodity and other moveables. In case. It does not end in confiscation the essential commodity, if available will have to be released or if not, the price thereof will have to be paid and the other moveables also will have to be released to the owner thereof or the person from whom the same are seized. Therefore, in such a proceeding, if the owner of the essential commodity and the other moveables so seized dies during the pendency of the proceeding, it becomes necessary for the authority exercising the power under Section 6A of the Act, to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record and to continue the proceeding against the legal representatives. Until the essential commodity and the other moveables so seized are confiscated, the title to the same continues to vest in the owner thereof unless he has caused it to pass to another. On the death of the owner who was a party to the proceeding, the title in the essential commodity and the other moveables so seized passes to the legal representatives. Therefore, they will step into the shoes of the deceased owner and as such, as of right, they will be entitled to be heard in the matter. Therefore, for completing the proceeding under Section 6A of the Act, it is necessary to bring the legal representatives of the deceased owner, on record. Without bringing the legal representatives on record, the proceeding under Section 6A of the Act, cannot be proceeded with in the case of the death of the owner during the pendencv of the proceeding. Thus, it becomes clear that even though there is no provision contained in the Act authorising the authority exercising the power under Section 6A of the Act, to bring the legal representative- of the deceased party to the proceeding on record: it must have to be held that such a power is absolutely essential for the discharge of the duties and exercise of the power conferred by the Act, upon the authority. Therefore, it must be held that such a power is impliedly conferred upon the authority by the Act as other wise, the purpose for which the power is conferred cannot at all be accomplished. In t - his connection a passage from Maxwell on interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition, at page 95o, may usefully be referred to "Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts. or employing such acts or as are essentially necessary to its execution." The Supreme Court. In the ease of sub-divisional Officer, Sadar. Faizabad V. S N. Singh, reported in AIR1970 SC 140 , (1969 )1 SCC825 , [1970 ]1 SCR151 ,has held as follows:

(3.) Hence, the Deputy Commissioner was not right in refusing to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Parvatreddv on record and to consider the case of the petitioner for release of the jowar in question as he has already come to the conclusion that no contravention is established and as such, the jowar in question cannot be confiscated. Accordingly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, in so far as it relates to refusal to consider the case of the petitioner that he being the son of deceased Parvatreddy, is entitled to come on record as legal representative of the deceased, is hereby quashed,