VIJAY HEMRAJBHAI MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that on 4.11.2001 the flour mill of the petitioner, known as Hemraj Flour Mill being operated at 11/A, Ashwamegh Industrial Estate, Changodar, Tal.Sanand, Dist.Ahmedabad was inspected and certain breaches of provisions of Gujarat Essential Articles (Liceensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Control Order") were found and the goods were seized by the authority. It appears that thereafter the show cause notice was issued and the petitioner submitted reply contending, inter alia, that it is new business and application is made by the petitioner and it was also stated that no licence is required to be obtained. It was also submitted that the breach is for the first time and therefore it may be condoned. The District Collector did not accept the explanation and ordered for confiscation of stock of Wheat worth Rs.2,06,720/- which was already seized. It appears that the petitioner preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No.22/02 before the Ld.District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad and the Ld.Sessions Judge as per the decision dated 3.3.04 partly allowed the appeal but did not disturb the order passed by the Collector for confiscation of Wheat worth Rs.2,06,720/- and under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court by preferring the present petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr.Yadav for the petitioner and Mr.Raval, Ld.AGP for the respondent authorities. Upon hearing the learned counsel of both sides, it appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner had no license, as per Control Order, for having stock of essential items including Wheat which has been ordered to be confiscated. Mr.Yadav, Ld.advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already applied for getting licence in the year 1999, i.e. on 1.10.1999 and the said application was pending and the petitioner was also communicated about the same as per letter, dated 27.7.00, copy whereof is produced at annexure "I" to the petition and therefore he submitted that when the application was pending it can not be said that the petitioner could not start the business or could not hold the stock of essential items. In support of his submission he has relied upon the provisions of Sub.Clause (4) of Clause (3) of the Control Order and he submitted that as per the said subclause(4) of clause (3) of the Control Order the petitioner is entitled to continue with the business till the application is granted or refused:

(3.) Sub-clause (4) of Order 3 of the Control Order reads as under: