SHRIJI TRADI COMPANY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was carrying on his business at Godhra, having a licence for carrying on business in the Essential Commodities like "Food Grains, Millets, Oil Seeds, etc. has filed this petition being aggrieved of the order dtd.26.2.1991 passed by the Dy. Secretary, Civil Supplies Department in Appeal No.170/89. Wherein the authorities was pleased to confirm the order passed on 28.2.1989 bearing No.PRV/ECA/6/A/224/88 by the District Officer, Godhra, under the provision of Sec.6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The order was passed to the effect that the stock of various items like paddy, bajri, tuvar valued at Rs.45,157.00 50% of that be forfeited.

(2.) What was alleged against the petitioner was that when the petitioner's shop was visited on 18.11.88 by the Supply Inspector he had found certain irregularities. Amongst these irregularities one of the irregularity was that the stock of various items was found either less or in excess than the books of account, thus the books of account were not maintained properly. It was also alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner had carried on business at the place other than the one which was mentioned in the licence. The other irregularity alleged against the petitioner was that at the relevant time puccka bills were not given to the consumer and that the books of account were not maintained in manner so as to ascertain stock of the items.

(3.) Mr.J.C.Seth, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the judgment and order passed by the appellate authority in an appeal is against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscious and that the same is arbitrary and void of reasonings and therefore it is illegal and bad. It is also submitted by Mr.Seth the learned advocate that without any cogent reason, authorities have come to the conclusion that the alleged irregularities have been proved and the reasons advanced by the petitioner were not accepted. In the alternative Mr.Seth, submitted that the irregularities which are alleged against the petitioner are of minor nature and they are bound to occur in any business and therefore the same should not have been termed as misconduct on the part of the petitioner and should not have invited the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Thus it was submitted, that, punishment imposed is illegal and bad and therefore the same is required to be quashed and set aside by this court.