VIJAY PAL GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a short but an important question relating to the procedure, governing the proceedings before a Collector, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'The Act'), for confiscation of the essential commodity seized for contravention of an order made, under Section 3 of the Act in relation thereto. This question has arisen in the background of the following facts :-

(2.) On 10th March, 1981, at about 8.00 p.m., offiicials of the special cell (crime branch). Delhi police, accompanied by the staff of the Food & Supplies Department, Delhi Adiministration, raided the business premises bearing No-A-56/l Guru Nanak pura of M/s Sudha Gupta store. The petitioner, Vijay Pal Gupta, who is husband of Smt. Sudha Gupta was present there. He opened the lock of the said premises with a key which was with him at that time. On checking, 8 quintals 76.5 kg. edible oils odifferent varities were found stocked in the premises. Since it was in excess of the premissible quantity under the provisions of Delhi Edible Oils (Licensing and control) order 1977 (for short. Licensing and countrol order) which had been issued under section 3 of the Act, the whole of it was seized. A case was registered against the petitioner for contravention of the Licensing & control order, and a report was also made to the collector about the seizure as envisaged in Section 6-A of the Act. Thereupon, the proceedings for confiscation of the seized commodities were initiated and a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause in writing, as to why the aforesaid quantity of edible Oil be not confiscated/disposed of under Section 6-A of the Act. He was required to appear personally or through an authorised representative on 8th April, 1981 before the collector. However, it appears that the said notice was received back unserved with the report of the postman "no such person in this premises". Thereupon, a fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he was called upon to appear before the Collector on 27th April, 1981 but that notice too was received back unserved. However, on 27th April, 1931, Smt. Sudha Gupta, proprietor of the aforesaid store, appeared in person and the case was adjourned to I 1th May, 1981, at her request. On 8th May, 1981, both the petitioner Vijay Pal and his wife Smt. Sudha Gupta appeared before the Collector in person and the former made a statement that the goods seized belonged to two shops, Sudha Gupta being the owner of one shop and he being the owner of the other shop. So he prayed that the goods seized by the officials of the Department be released in their favour. However, the Collector vide order dated 20th May, 1981, directed that excess quantity of edible oil weighing 3 quintals and 79 Kg (No. 1 (HVO) brand vanaspati oil) be confiscated to the State and the same be disposed of by action through Nazarat officer. As for the balance stock, he directed its release in favour of M/s Sudha Gupta Store on an indemnity bond being furnished in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety in the like amount. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal to the judicial authority, under section 6-G of the Act. The same was heard and dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 8th September, 1981. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a double-barrelled attack against the impugned order. His first grievance is that no legal notice as contemplated by the provisions of Section 6-B was ever served on the petitioner, even though there is a legislative mandate to do so. Secondly, he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the order was vitiated, on account of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law.