BHARAT TEA CENTRE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, has filed this Special Civil Application challenging the order dated 24-3-1984 passed by the District Supply Officer and confirmed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in Appeal No. 158 of 1984 decided on 23rd October, 1984. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has started business to sell tea from March, 1984. On inspection conducted by the Chief Supply Inspector, Rajkot, at the business premises of the petitioner, on 24th March, 1984, it was found that the firm was carrying on business of sale of tea without holding registration certificate under the Gujarat Tea (Registration and Dealers) Orders, 1984. In the stock of the petitioner 1,142 kgs. of tea was found in excess of the permissible stock which should have been held by the petitioner at the business premises. The said stock was seized by the Inspecting Officer. Show-cause notice was given to the petitioner by the District Supply Officer calling upon it to show-cause why the tea stock should not be confiscated under the powers conferred under S.6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and why action of lodging police complaint or Court case should not be initiated under Sec. 7 for breach of S.3 of the aforesaid Act. Reply to the show-cause notice has been considered and the District Supply Officer under his order dated 8-5-1984 ordered confiscation of 427 kgs. of tea. Under the orders the quantity of confiscated tea has been shown to be 427 kgs. but there is no dispute between the parties that it is an error, and excess quantity of tea was only 142 kgs. Appeal has been filed against the said order by the petitioner. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Gandhinagar, under order dated 23rd October, 1984 partly allowed the appeal, and the order of the District Supply Officer, Rajkot, was modified and 50% of the stock was ordered to be confiscated. Hence this Special Civil Application.

(2.) . Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had applied for registration on 12th March, 1984 and on 14th March, 1984 fees of Rs. 40.00 was also paid. But upto the time of inspection, registration certificate was not issued. As the petitioner had already applied for registration, pending issue of certificate by the competent authority, if stock of tea in excess of 1,000 kgs. is found, it cannot be said to be a case where the petitioner has made contravention of clause (3) of the order of 1984. It has next been contended that otherwise also under the provisions of the Order of 1984, the petitioner has all the right to stock more than 1,000 kgs. of tea during the period his application for grant of certificate of registration is not decided. Lastly, the Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is only a technical breach and as such the order of confiscation of 50% of the stock is arbitrary.

(3.) . On the other hand, Ms. P. S. Parmar, the Counsel for the respondents, contended that the petitioner has started his business of sale of tea on 12th March, 1984 and within a few days of their application stock of tea at the business premises was found to be in excess of 1,000 kgs. It is true that the petitioner has submitted the register to the Mamlatdar on 14th March, 1984. But nothing was shown under the provisions of the Order of 1984 to show that the petitioner could hold tea in excess of the permissible limit under the said Order. She has further contended that the petitioner had purchased 1,256.100 kgs. of tea on 16-3-1984 and 1,585.900 kgs. on 22-3-1984. So from these purchases of tea by the petitioner it is clearly borne out that he patently flouted the Order of 1984. As per the provisions of the Order of 1984 no person can trade in tea by holding stock in excess of 1,000 kgs. without getting registration under the said Order. The petitioner was aware of the provisions of the Order. Still the petitioner has violated the said provisions and no indulgence deserves to be granted in favour of such persons. Ms. Parmar further submitted that the Order of 1984 no where gives licence to the petitioner to continue to hold stock of tea in excess of 1 kg. pending grant of certificate of registration to him under the said Order. His application was submitted on 12th March, 1984. Lastly the learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the appellate authority has already shown indulgence to the petitioner and the confiscation of the stock ordered by the District Supply Officer has been reduced to 50%, and therefore, no further indulgence is required.