PAUL PANJIKKARAN Vs. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHALAKUDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are connected, and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. In these writ petitions, petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the first proviso to Clause 8A of the Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (for short, the Order 1968).

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that W.P.(C). No.5773 of 2019 can be taken as the main case because common grounds are raised in all the writ petitions. Therefore, I will consider the facts and exhibits in W.P.(C). No.5773 of 2019.

(3.) The petitioners are Kerosene wholesale dealers. The distribution and sale of Kerosene are regulated by various provisions under the Kerosene Control Order, which was framed by invoking the powers under the Essential Commodities Act. There was a series of litigations between the dealers like the petitioners and the Government about the payment differential cost between the revised wholesale selling price and the pre-revision selling price of Kerosene. Ultimately Clause 8A and its proviso were inserted by SRO No.1083/88 dtd. 12/9/1988. As per Clause 8A, a wholesale dealer shall sell Kerosene at the wholesale selling price fixed by the District Collector from time to time under orders issued by the State Government having regard to the provisions of Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order, 1970. The first proviso to Clause 8A says that whenever the issue price of Kerosene is revised upward, the differential cost worked out at the difference between the revised wholesale selling price and pre-revision selling price on the closing stock available with the dealer on the close of business on the day previous to the day on which the revised rate comes into force shall be payable to the Government by the wholesale dealer. The constitutional validity of this proviso to Clause 8A is challenged in this writ petition. It is also contended that without furnishing the relevant details, huge amount is demanded from the petitioners under different heads. Those notices were also challenged in this writ petition.