SUNITHA JAFFER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (for short, 'LPG'). Attributing certain irregularities in the storage of LPG cylinders, Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Collector. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation stating that there is no irregularity or illegality in the stock of LPG cylinders. Later, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 notice of hearing and she appeared before the respondent and reiterated her contentions in Ext.P4. However, the respondent passed Ext.P6 order imposing a fine of Rs.5,000.00 under Ss. 3, 6 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') and Ss. 8 and 10 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (for short, 'the Order, 2000'). Ext. P6 is challenged inter alia on the ground that the District Collector has no authority to convict or impose fine on the petitioner under Ss. 3, 6 and 7 of the Act and Ss. 8 and 10 of the Order, 2000.

(2.) A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is stated that the District Collector is competent to take prosecution steps under the Act and taking a lenient view, the District Collector has imposed only a minor penalty.

(3.) Heard Sri. A. Rajasimhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jacob E. Simon, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.