(1.) This is a petition by a merchant of Bhalki, under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution. He has challenged an Order of confiscation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar in PSB/ENQ/2509/68-69 dt.13-1-1969. By that order food-grains belonging to the oetitioner were confiscated as per the provisions of S.6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said Order was later confirmed by the Sessions Judge at Bidar, the designated authority, on appeal by the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner two contentions were urged by the learned Counsel Sri B. S. Rajkote.
(2.) The first contention is that by virtue of the definition of the 'wholesale dealer' occurring in clause 2(e) of the Mysore Food-grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order 1964, and the fact that the petitioner had been described by the authority himself as 'Commission Agent', the petitioner would not be liable to comply with the requirement of taking out of license provided under clause 3 of the said Rules. That being so, he was not liable to be proceeded against under S,6A of the Essential Commodities Act. I am unable to accede to this contention.
(3.) Although the petitioner has been so described in the notice issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner, in order to earn the exemption provided under the definition of 'wholesale dealer', he must be a Commission Agent, who only acts on behalf of the wholesalers or producers on commission, but is not actuallv holding any stock in the conduct of his business. In the instant case, there is not much doubt that the petitioner was in possession of sufficient stock of food grains notified as Essential Commodities . When once he was in possession of such food grains, in such quantities as would bring him within the mischief of the Order of 1964, he would clearly not fall within the exception provided in the definition of 'wholesale dealer'. Once his case falls outside that exception, the explanation provided for in clause 2(e) would be clearly attracted. The explanation is as follows :