RAM SEWAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed as against the orders dated 22nd September, 1986 (Annexure 5 of the writ petition) and 7-5-1985 (Annexure 4 to the petition) which are passed under the Uttar Pradesh Tea (Registration of Dealers and Declaration of Stocks) Order, 1984.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner deals with the business of the tea and it is not in dispute that after coming into force the aforesaid Order, he cannot keep in possession for more than 1000 Kg. tea at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner used to purchase tea from Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. THE case of the petitioner was that on the date of raid by the authorities on 27th March, 1985 the excess quantity of tea found in possession of the petitioner was on account of wrong despatch of 600 Kg. tea to the petitioner by the said Company which was intimated to the said Company and the Company's representative on 28-3-85 informed that the Company had realised the mistake in this regard by means of a letter. However, since excess quantity of tea more than what was contemplated under the aforesaid Order was found on the day of raid, thereafter a confiscation order was passed by the authorities concerned which is impugned. Finally an appeal was preferred as against this order which is also rejected by the appellate authority. It is significant in this case that on 22nd March, 1985 was the date on which the petitioner received the tea from the agent of Tatas. 23rd March, 1985 was the very next date when the petitioner intimated to the said Company regarding the 600 Kg. tea not belonging to him and had wrongly been received by him which was meant for some body else This fact was acknowledged by the said Company by means of its letter dated 28-3-85 in which the aforesaid Company expressed its regret of having despatched 600 Kg. tea which was not meant for the petitioner. On these facts the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that could it be a case of which the petitioner could have been said to have violated the Order of 1984. THE relevant paras 3 and 4 of the aforesaid Order is quoted as under :

(3.) CERTIFIED copy of this judgment may be issued to the counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week. Petition allowed.