RISHI PETROCHEM PVT. LTD Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was holding licence of various products of solvent, but the licence of the petitioner was ultimately surrendered by him and based on the same, the licence was cancelled. However, as the stock of raw material being naptha and industrial solvent was available with the petitioner, the petitioner applied for grant of permission to sell the stock of raw material. The permission was granted to sell the stock of raw material to 3 parties being Ganesh Chem Tech Pvt. Ltd., Rudraksha Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., and K.G. Thinchem. It is the case of the petitioner the petitioner after converting naptha into solvent, sold some quantity to the aforesaid parties and the said aspect was also verified. The inspection was carried out by the Director, Food and Civil Supply and at that time, it was found that without their being any licence for conversion of naptha into industrial solvent, the product of industrial solvent is being sold by the petitioner and therefore, the seizure had taken place of 93346 ltrs. of naptha. After seizure, show cause notice was issued by the Director, Food & Civil Supply dated 01.07.2002 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act as to why the seized quantity of naptha should not be confiscated. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted reply and contended inter alia that the Director who carried out the inspection has also carried out the seizure and therefore, he cannot be a judge of his own cause and therefore, he may not decide the matter for confiscation of the quantity of the stock which is seized. The Director, Food & Civil Supply appears to have referred the matter to the State Government and the State Government in view of the circumstance mentioned in the letter dated 24.10.2002, assigned the matter to the District Collector, Vadodara in view of the peculiar circumstance that the District Collector, Ahmedabad was not available and the post was vacant and the charge was with the Additional Collector and the present being an important matter, the in-charge officer may not be assigned with the work and therefore, the matter was assigned to the District Collector, Vadodara. It appears that thereafter, the District Collector, Vadodara issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted reply and ultimately, vide order dated 21.12.2002, the final order for confiscation of the stock of naptha is passed. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge being Criminal Appeal No. 23/02 and the learned Sessions Judge has ultimately, after hearing both the sides, dismissed the appeal. Under these circumstances, the present revision before this Court.

(2.) Heard Mr. Prajapati, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Raval, learned APP for the State.

(3.) The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the permission was granted to sell t he product or the stock which was with the petitioner. He submitted that pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner sold the product of solvent to the parties who were to purchase the same as per the order of the Mamlatdar. He submitted that the permission was granted for the sale of 246899 ltr. of naptha and 7544 ltr. of solvent S-3 and therefore, if the naptha is converted into solvent product and is also sold under the supervision of the officers of the District Collector, who did not object at any point of time, it cannot be said that there was any breach of the control order and on the contrary, if the intention was considered for permitting the sale of the stock of raw material, the same was satisfied. He submitted that under these circumstances, the confiscation was not warranted in law as there was no breach of the control order.