KIRAN OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR JAMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent waives service of rule. At the request of both the sides the matter is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner challenges the order dated 7/10/1993 passed by the Collector and confirmed by the Government in appeal by its order dated 20/10/1995, by which 810 kgs. of groundnut oil worth Rs. 31,104/- was confiscated.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioner was that he had sold the groundnut oil at a price higher by Rs. 18.00 per tin. It was also alleged that there was deficit of 1,962 kgs. of groundnut oil at the time of physical verification. The defence of the petitioner was that the price charged for the groundnut oil tins was not higher than the price displayed. It was also contended by the petitioner that the deficit in the quantity of groundnut oil was due to the reasons mentioned in the reply dated 7-9-1993.

(3.) v It is evident from the impugned orders that the defences raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the concerned authorities. Under Sec. 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, a reasonable opportunity of being heard is required to be given before making any order confiscating any essential commodity under Sec. 6A of the Act. Such reasonable opportunity follows the show cause notice informing the person from whom the commodity is seized, of the grounds on which confiscation is proposed. It, therefore, follows that any material on which reliance is to be placed must be disclosed to the person on whom show cause notice is issued, to enable him to have an appropriate opportunity of being heard in the matter. It is also incumbent upon the authorities to look into the defence raised by the petitioner with a view to come to the conclusion whether confiscation would be justified or not. Therefore, where preliminary statements are recorded at the time of raid and thereafter, show cause notice is issued under Sec. 6B, all that material which the authority may rely upon is to be again put to the person concerned to enable him to defend himself in the matter. In the present case, the concerned authorities have dealt with the matter rather casually and have not considered the defence raised by the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that the goods were required to be confiscated. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. The Bank guarantee which has been furnished by the petitioner shall be kept alive until further orders that may be made by the concerned authorities.