JAYAKUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibit P5 order issued by the respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. Through Ext.P5 order the petitioner was imposed with penalty to the tune of Rs.50,000.00 under Sec. 6A and 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and under provisions of the LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order' for short). The petitioner herein is the authorised distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) of 'Indane' brand at Parassala Panchayat. Officials of the Civil Supplies Department headed by the District Supply Officer conducted an inspection at the premises of the distributorship of the petitioner, on 07-12-2010. Noticing certain irregularities in keeping the accounts and statements in tally with the stock of gas cylinders kept in the premises and also noticing failure in keeping all the requisite licences and permits renewed; and further alleging that the distributor is not following strict priority in the matter of supply of cylinders to various consumers, it is observed that the petitioner had violated provision of the above said Order. In Ext.P5 it is mentioned that, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice and the explanation submitted by him are not satisfactory. Therefore the amount of penalty is imposed.

(2.) The impugned order is assailed mainly contending that the District Collector has no power or authority to impose penalty, under Sec. 6A or 6B of the Act or under any of the provisions of the above said Order. In support of the above contention it is pointed out that, Sec. 6 to 6E of the Act only deals with the powers of confiscation of any essential commodities, with respect to which an order under Sec. 3 of the Act is promulgated. It is pointed out that Sec. 7 prescribes penalties with respect to contravention of any order made under Sec. 3. But it is contended that such penalty can be imposed only by the court which is competent to deal with any of the offences under the Act. Referring to provisions contained in Sec. 11 of the Act it is submitted that only the competent court can take cognizance of any offences punishable under the Act, based on a report in writing of the fact constituting such offence made by such person who is a public servant. Hence it is contended that the penalty imposed by the respondent through Ext.P5 order is totally without jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is mentioned that, Ext.P5 order was issued after giving several chances to the petitioner to explain his version and the same is issued in conformity with provisions of the Act. But the contention that the provisions of the Act does not confer any such power, was not seen dealt with specifically in the counter affidavit. Contention of the respondent is that the action impugned is one coming within Clause 6 of the Order. But Clause 6 of the Order does not provide any power for imposition of penalty. On the other hand, it imposes prohibition on persons other than oil companies, parallel marketeer or a distributor from being engaged in the business of selling LPG to consumer. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the action against the LPG distributor is based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, as per Ext.R1 (a). But on a perusal of Ext.R1 (a) it is revealed that those guidelines are issued only to the Oil Marketing Companies to ensure that their distributors are complying with certain regulations/conditions. The said guidelines empowers the Oil Marketing Companies to impose fine if their distributors are violating certain conditions or practising any malicious acts in their business activities. The said guidelines will not in any manner confer any statutory power on the respondent District Collector. Power if any conferred on the District Collector to take any penal action against any dealer of the essential commodities, can only be by virtue of provisions contained in the Essential Commodities Act or the orders issued thereunder. Since there is no power to impose penalty by virtue of any of the statutory provisions contained therein, imposition of penalty ordered through Ext.P5 cannot be sustained.