NATWARLAL AND SONS Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, State of Gujarat, confirming the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the respondent No.3Collector in appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the respondent No.2District Supply Officer, canceling kerosene license of the petitioner, forfeiting the deposit amount of Rs.6,000/as well as ordering the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,42,968/, being the price of 2100 liters of kerosene, with the Government.

(2.) I have heard learned advocates for the parties. Learned advocate Mr.N.K.Pahwa for M/s.Thakkar Associates for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially agent of Barmashell Company and when Bharat Petroleum Company took over the management, the petitioner made overhead tank for storage of kerosene and in such overhead tank, stock of 2100 liters of kerosene remained lying at the bottom level of the tank. Mr.Pahwa submitted that the petitioner never faced any complaint of not properly distributing the stock of kerosene received by it either to the retail license holders or to the customers. Mr.Pahwa submitted that since whatever stock as and when received as a wholesaler, was distributed, the overhead tank was hardly used. Mr.Pahwa submitted that unfortunately an incident of theft occurred at the godown of the business of the petitioner on 05.02.2013, for which the complaint was sent to police station under courier delivery system to ensure that such complaint was registered by the police. However, the petitioner could not inform anything as regards such theft to the concerned authorities. The license of the petitioner was suspended for 90 days, but said period was reduced to 45 days and the license of the petitioner was ordered to be revived with effect from 01.07.2013. Mr.Pahwa submitted that when the Collector found that the period of 90 days for suspension was excessive and ordered to revive the license, the District Supply Officer ought not to have canceled the license of the petitioner, especially when the petitioner is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.1,42,968/being the price of 2100 liters of kerosene not found in stock with the petitioner. Mr.Pahwa submitted that the petitioner has been holding a wholesale license in kerosene for more than 30 years and during such long tenure of license period, the petitioner has not been found to have indulged into any irregularity in the matter of holding stock of the kerosene or distribution thereof. Mr.Pahwa submitted that pending the petition, the petitioner has filed affidavit dated 18.06.2014, stating that except the impugned order canceling license of the petitioner, no other order has ever been made against the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act or the control order. Mr.Pahwa submitted that considering blotless history of the petitioner in the matter of dealing in kerosene under the wholesale license, this Court may interfere in the impugned orders by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) HAVING heard learned advocates for the parties, it appears that during inspection of the overhead tank of the petitioner, the storage capacity of which is stated to be 45000 liters of kerosene, the stock of the kerosene of 2100 liters stated to be at bottom of the tank was not found on physical verification in the overhead tank. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that much before the inspection was carried out, the petitioner had complained to the police by sending complaint through Maruti courier about the theft took place at the godown of the petitioner on 05.02.2013, the same did not find favour with the authorities below on the conduct of the petitioner of sending the complaint to the police through courier especially when no intimation about the theft was given to the concerned authorities. However, what appears to be not in dispute is that the petitioner has been holding wholesale license to deal in kerosene for last number of years. The petitioner has stated in the appeal before the authority that the petitioner has been holding license from year 1966. It appears that from AnnexureC at page No.31 that wholesale license, being license No.9/81, has been continuously renewed from the year 1981 at the interval of every 5 years till 31.12.2010. It is pointed out by Mr.Pahwa which was not disputed by Mr.Banaji that after 2010 also the wholesale license of the petitioner was renewed for further period of 5 years. Thus, the petitioner has been holding such wholesale license for kerosene being license No.9/81 for last more than 30 years.