CHETAN KUMAR JAYANTILAL SHAH Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Chetankumar Jayantilal Shah has filed the present petition to challenge the orders passed by the District Supply Officer on 24.11.1995 and by the Deputy Secretary, Civil Supply Department on 21.1.1997.

(2.) The petitioner is running a shop in the name of New Mahavir Trading Company and is dealing in essential commodities. On 27.5.1995, Food Inspector of Surat visited the shop as well as godown and at that time he found that the petitioner was not having stock registers, account books, bill books at the place of business as well as godown and he had also found other technical defects like incorrect entries in the licence at the place of business as well as place of godown. At the time of said visit, he had also found certain goods i.e., essential commodities which were seized by him. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him on 9.5.1995 to show cause as to why the said seized goods should not be confiscated to Government and why action should not be taken against him. He gave reply dated 21.11.1995. In the said reply, he had contended that the defects found at the time of inspection were on account of his ignorance and he had not done it intentionally. He had also explained that the stock register and other account books and bill books were in his house. The District Supply Officer, Surat by his order dated 24.11.1995 rejected his explanation regarding non-availability of stock register, other account books and bill books and taking into consideration that aspect and other facts, namely, the commission of other technical defaults passed an order to confiscate 5.0% of the essential commodities. Against the said order of the District Supply Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Deputy Secretary, Civil Supply Department, Gujarat State, who heard his appeal and dismissed the same by confirming the order of the District Supply Officer by his order dated 21.1.1997 and hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

(3.) It is vehemently urged before me by Mr. Patel, that the petitioner had committed only technical defaults and the confiscation of 50% of the goods is a harsh sentence. He urged before me that the District Civil Supply Officer as well as appellate authority were not justified in rejecting his explanation that stock register and other account bill books were at his residence. He urged before me that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was dealing in black marketing and therefore, in the circumstances, the sentence of confiscating 50% of the goods is disproportionate.