LAWS(GJH)-1997-12-67

WIPRO LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VALSAD

Decided On December 04, 1997
WIPRO LIMITED Appellant
V/S
District Collector Valsad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short issue is raised in this petition. Petitioners are manufacturing hydro-generated oil, i.e., Vanaspati. It is one of the commodity covered under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981, issued under Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The facts which are not disputed, and are necessary for resolving the present controversy are that petitioners intimated to the Collector on 28th December, 1990 through two separate documents, Intimation Nos. 792 and 793, in Form prescribed for that purpose about moving the stated number of tins of vegetable oil comprising of two consignments from the place of its disclosed storage to a destination outside State with necessary particulars. Order * for quashing the seizure of vegetable oil and truck by the officers of the State Government. No. GTH/84(A)/3/ECA/1180/6419/B dated 6-1-1984 issued in exercise of powers under sub-clause (1) of Clause 24 by the Government of Gujarat provides that information regarding sale including agreement to sell, disposal, delivery or distribution of edible oil seeds or, as the case may be, edible oils outside the State of Gujarat in the Form appended hereto in duplicate in such manner as to reach the concerned officer forty-eight hours before the time of moving such edible oil seeds or edible oils from the place where it is stored with a view to sell, including agreement to sell, dispose of, deliver or distribute the same outside the State of Gujarat. The information through this intimation form reached Collector at 12-00 p.m. on that very day and it was returned with endorsement on that very day at 4-00 p.m. The endorsement also envisaged that validity of such intimation for moving the edible oil from the place of storage was upto 4-00 p.m. on 4-1-1991. The two consignments under the two intimation forms were despatched from the storage at Bhavnagar at 3-30 p.m. on 4-1-1991. The goods were seized at Bhilad check post near Vapi by the Supplies Inspector, Valsad. On being approached by the petitioners on 9-1-1991, District Supply Officer, Bhavnagar informed through Enquiry Officer, check post Vapi that truck containing the consignment under two intimations referred to above had left the place of storage at Bhavnagar at 3-30 p.m. on 4-1-1991 before expiry of the period of the validity of intimation, therefore, the transit was in order and the goods may be released. However, the officer at Vapi did not release the seized goods on the ground that as the last check post within the Gujarat State through which the consignment was to pass was mentioned as Vapi, goods if not crossed check post Vapi before the time-limit fixed in the endorsement on the intimation, the goods could not be transported further, and therefore, movement of goods from the place of storage is in breach of the condition of licence. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner approached this Court by way of this Special Civil Application. On 30-1-1991, this Court issued Rule and by way of interim relief ordered for release of the goods and the trucks as the petitioner has filed undertaking in which the petitioner had undertaken to deposit the value of goods transported to Hyderabad or to furnish a bank guarantee of the same value in case the Court ultimately holds that the petitioners were required to transport the goods outside the Gujarat within seven days from the date of intimation. No reply has been filed to this petition by the State.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the period of validity of intimation required to be furnished under the order issued in exercise of power under Clause 24 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 relates to the movement of the goods from the place of storage mentioned in licence and has no connection with the period of transit or reaching particular destination prior to the date of the validity of initimation. There is no provision according to Mr. Majmudar which prescribes the outer limit of period before which the goods despatched from the place of search under a valid intimation must reach any particular point or place of destination.

(3.) On the other hand, it was strenuously contended by Mr. Patel, learned A.G.P. on behalf of the State that the outer limit of the validity of intimation appearing in the endorsement on intimation form made by the Collector on receipt of such intimation and returned to the licensee, indicates that the goods must reach the place mentioned therein within the period of validity of intimation and merely moving of the goods from the place of storage within the period of the validity of intimation is not sufficient.