KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent no.3 Lt. Governor of Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act promulgated an Order called Delhi Food-grains & Oilseeds (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the "order") which, inter alia, prohibited any person from carrying on the business as dealer, except in accordance with the terms of the license issued to him in this regard. The term "dealer" has been defined in the aforesaid order, inter alia, to mean a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any of the foodgrains in quantity of 20 quintals each or in quantity of 50 quintals or more of all foodgrains taken together. The aforesaid order also required any dealer holding a valid license under Delhi Foodgrains & Oilseeds (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1964 to apply to the Licensing Authority for a fresh license within seven (7) days of the commencement of 1988 Order. The application for grant of license or renewal thereof was to be made in Form-A. Clause 12 of the aforesaid order prohibited a wholesaler or rice-miller, from having in his possession at any time, rice of all varieties taken together in quantities exceeding 1000 (one thousand quintals), whereas a retailer was prohibited from holding stock of rice of all varieties taken together in quantities exceeding 50 (fifty) quintals. The aforesaid prohibition, however, was not to apply to a commission agent who did not retain any consignment of rice for a period exceeding fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt, if he had got his license endorsed from the Licensing Authority for working as a commission agent. The second proviso to Clause 12 exempted from its operation the exporters of basmati rice allowed under the Open General License (OGL) upto the quantity required for execution of exports contracts, for which the exporters were to give an undertaking specifying the details of exports including the delivery schedule of basmati rice.

(2.) A checking of the premises of petitioners no.1 and 3 was carried out by the officials of the respondents on 21.01.1992 and as many as 46124 bags and 17805 kattas of rice were found in the premises of petitioner no.1 whereas 8535 bags and 27005 kattas of rice were found in the premises of the petitioner no.3. Separate FIRs being FIR no.41/1992 and 42/1992 were registered against the petitioners no.1 and

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that out of the bags and kattas of rice found in the premises of the petitioner no.1, 9577 and 2863 bags were held for less than fifteen (15) days and 15694 bags and 11301 kattas were meant for export and 20875 bags and 3621 kattas are alleged to be held for more than fifteen (15) days. As regards bags and kattas of rice found in the premises of the petitioner no.3, their case is that 6047 bags and 18972 kattas of rice were held for less than fifteen (15) days and 2488 bags and 8033 kattas of rice were meant for export. According to the petitioners, no rice found in the premises of the petitioner no.3, was held for more than fifteen (15) days. Thus, according to the petitioners, no offence against the petitioner no.3 is made out though the petitioners do not seem to be disputing that as far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, it was holding rice, not meant for export, for more than fifteen (15) days. The charge-sheet against petitioners no.1 and 3 for having committed offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was filed, but vide interim orders of this Court, the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge were stayed by this Court. Later, charges were framed against the petitioners and their partners on 4.5.2012.