GAJENDRA OIL INDUSTRY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred by Messrs. Gajendra Oil Industry, [hereinafter referred to as the SFirm ] against the judgment and order dated 8th March, 1996 passed by the State Government [Deputy Secretary-Appeals, Civil Supplies Department] in Supply Appeal No. 395 of 1993.

(2.) It appears that on 25th February, 1993, the Firm was transporting certain quantity of oil seeds [sesame seeds] by a Truck bearing No. GTX- 2375. The said truck was intercepted by the officers of the Civil Supplies Department. The goods - 60 bags of sesame seeds weighing 4800 kilograms worth Rs. 63,000/= was seized by the Supplies Inspector. The Firm was given notice to show cause why for the irregularities/illegalities committed by the Firm, the goods seized be not confiscated. According to the Supplies Inspector, the goods were transported under a common receipt no.6 dated 25th January, 1993 ie., the old receipt of 25th January, 1993 was being used; that the gate-pass was not issued and instead of issuing separate receipts to each of the farmers from whom the seeds were purchased, signatures of all such farmers were taken on the same receipt. According to the said officer, the aforesaid illegalities were committed with a view to concealing the incoming of the said oil seeds. The said notice was answered by the Firm. According to the Firm, it was a sheer mistake that it bore the date S25th January, 1993 . In fact, the said receipt was of 25th February, 1993. In support thereof, the Firm relied upon the receipt no.5 which was issued on 18th February, 1993. As to the gate-pass, the Firm explained that the gate pass would be issued only when the goods reach the factory premises and were allowed to enter into the factory premises. The truck was intercepted in transit by the Civil Supplies Officers. As to the common receipt from all the farmers from whom the purchases were made, the explanation was that the receipt was sealed and countersigned by the Civil Supplies Office and that was the prevalent practice in the area. The said explanation was not accepted by the District Supply Officer, Junagadh. The District Supply Officer, therefore, by his order dated 17th June, 1993 ordered confiscation of forty per cent of the goods worth Rs. 25,200/=. Feeling aggrieved, the Firm preferred above referred Appeal No. 395 of 1993 before the State Government which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 8th March, 1996. Therefore, the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Joshi has submitted that except the date mentioned in the receipt, all other particulars viz., name of the farmers and the quantity of oil seeds purchased from each farmer were entered in the said receipt. The receipt was also sealed and counter signed by the Civil Supplies Officer. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, there was no earthly reason for the respondent-authorities not to believe the explanation given by the petitioner. He has submitted that though there was sufficient evidence ie., the receipt no. 5 issued on 18th February, 1993, the authorities below have erred in not accepting that the date S25th January, 1993 was entered in the receipt by mistake. He has submitted that the Firm had done no wrong for which it should have been punished. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside.