ANUPAM KHAD BHANDAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a raid conducted in the shop of the petitioner stock of D.A.P. Fertilisers was detained or seized on 31.12.1997. A first information report was lodged on 24.3.1998 and stop sale notice was Issued on 26.3.1998, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.3.1998. It is alleged by Sri Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel for the petitioner that while detaining and seizing the particular stock, the authority has completely sealed the petitioner's shop. It is also alleged that the petitioner is also dealing in other material and there were stock of fertilisers other than seized. The said seizure was conducted on the ground that the materials were of sub-standard. According to him, the other stocks were not seized or detained. Referring to paragraph 28 of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985, the petitioner submits that Section 28 does not empower the authority to seal the shop or prevent the petitioner from carrying on his business or trade and thereby to take away from him the right to carry on business or trade as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. He does not question the seizure of the stock alleged to be of sub-standard, which according to him, may be proceeded with under the provisions of law as are applicable in respect thereto. It will be open to the petitioner to defend his cause and to take all such objections as are available under law in case proceedings are initiated against him. He confined his submissions only to the extent that the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business cannot be taken away by sealing the shop and in respect of the stocks other than the stock, which has since been detained. He further contends that unless within 21 days of the detention or seizure, proceeding is initiated, no further proceeding can be initiated thereafter. The stop sale notice only can be issued within 21 days from the date of detention or seizure. On expiry of 21 days from the date of seizure or detention, no action can be taken by the respondents, therefore, the notice of stop sale is invalid.

(2.) Sri Ambwani, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after the issue of notice to stop sale, no proceeding has been initiated within 21 days. Therefore, the stop sale order shall also be deemed to have been revoked. On these grounds, he claims that the writ petition should be allowed by quashing the order of stop sale as well as seal should be withdrawn and he should be permitted to carry on his business.

(3.) Sri K. R. Singh. Teamed standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that 21 days embargo provided in the third proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Fertilisers (Control) Order. 1985, is confined only to initiation of proceedings after the issue of notice of stop sale. It has no manner of application in respect of initiation of proceeding from the date of detention or seizure or otherwise. Secondly, he contends that by virtue of Section 28 (1) (d), the Inspector is empowered to seize or detain the fertilisers in respect of which he has reasons to believe that contravention of the order is being committed. Thus as soon the Inspector is of the opinion that there is any likelihood of any breach of the said order, he can seal the shop and prevent the owner from transaction of business of whole stock. Therefore, there is no Infirmity in the order and the writ petition should be dismissed.