GOVIND KARSAN AND CO Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is holding a licence of Wholesaler under the provisions of the Gujarat Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order 1977 (The order is issued under) the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 A search was carried out at his premises in the month of January 1981 and it was found that the stock of groundnut was in excess of prescribed limit. Therefore the entire excess stock of groundnut has been ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Collector Veraval respondent No. 2 herein. The said order is confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Junagadh. The question that has surfaced in this petition is should the lower authorities have not exercised the discretion and order confiscation of lesser quantity of the groundnut than the entire stock found in excess of the prescribed limit?

(2.) . As per the terms and conditions of the licence held by the petitioner it was permissible for the petitioner to keep stock of groundnut up to the limit prescribed that is 50 0 kgs. On 16/01/1981 a search was carried out at the premises of the petitioner licensee and it was found by the supply Inspector who made the search that a total of 57 488 kgs of groundnut was there with the petitioner. It was prima facie found that the excess quantity of 7 488 kgs of groundnut was not entered in the stock register of the petitioner. Therefore a show cause notice was issued on 18/02/1981 by the Assistant Collector Veraval to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause for the excess stock and to show cause why the groundnut in question should not be confiscated under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It was mentioned in the notice that 228 bags of groundnut were not credited and that the entire stock found was to the extent of 57 488 kgs. of groundnut though the permissible limit was only 50 0 kgs. Over and above it was also pointed out that the petitioner licensee was in the habit of committing breach of the terms of licence and therefore his licence was liable to be cancelled.

(3.) . Against this show cause notice the petitioner submitted his reply on 16/03/1981 In this explanation he pointed out certain arithmatical mistakes in the calculation of conversion of groundnut into groundnut seeds. He further submitted that the stock up to the evening of 15/01/1981 was within the prescribed limit that is 50 0 kgs. and he maintained a gate pass book bearing serial numbers and the stock which was received late in the evening of 15/01/1981 was shown in the gate passbook but was not entered in the stock register. This was on account of the fact that the much person of the firm was engaged in a marriage ceremony and therefore he was required to go out of station and due to this reason necessary entries could not be made in the stock register. It was further pointed out that in the morning of 16/01/1981 a truck load of groundnut which was sold to one Ahmedabad party was being despatched and that was required to be taken into consideration and was required to be deducted from the stock of the petitioner firm. According to the petitioner though the request was made to take this factor into consideration the supply inspector did not take this into consideration and hence the petitioner had to send a telegram to the Collector Junagadh as follows: