KASHINATH BHIMANNA GHANTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Premises of the petitioners who are running a Provisions Shop at Sholapur, were raided on 25th August 1974. The residential house of the three Petitioners was also raided. According to the Petitioners, the business is carried on by them as the members of a partnership firm. Certain articles were seized from this shop and the house. We are concerned with the soaps which were in the form of cakes or bars and detergents, such as Surf, Rhino, Sway, Rinso, Det etc. The raid was made because it was found that the petitioners had not displayed the prices of soaps as required by the Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking of Prices) Order 1966, (hereinafter referred to as "the Orders"). This order is made by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(i) read with Clauses (c), (e), (i) and (j) of Sub-section (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"). By Clause 3 of this Order, a dealer is required to display and mark prices in respect of certain articles which are specified in Schedule 1 and the prices have to be displayed conspicuously during the hours of business and at a place as near to the entrance of his business premises as possible. The list of prices has to be in the form prescribed in Schedule 1. This list should be printed, typed, painted or written in pencil or with ink or chalk and has to be readable from a reasonable distance. We are concerned with entries Nos. 32 and 33 in Schedule 1 to this Order. These entries are as follows: Sr. Name of Article Quality if any Unit of Price Price No. 32 Washing soaps of two Manufacturers mentioning size. 33 Toilet soaps of two Manufacturers mentioning size andprice.

(2.) The Collector of Sholapur, within whose jurisdiction seizure was made, went into the question as to whether there was any contravention of the order and found that the petitioners had failed to prove that the prices and stocks of soaps were displayed on the board. The panchanama, which was made at the time of the seizure, shows that there was only one board, which was seized on which prices of soaps as required by the Order were not displayed. The Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 6A of the Act, therefore, made an order that all stock of commodities seized by the Police except Ovaltine, and Shikakai tins should be confiscated and they shall be immediately put to public auction to avoid any deterioration due to passage of time and the sale proceeds were directed to be credited to the Government.

(3.) Against this order of the Collector, the first and the third Petitioners, who appear to be father and son, filed an appeal. The second petitioner also is a son of the 1st Petitioner but his name is not to be found in the appeal memo filed before the Sessions Judge, Sholapur, Before the Sessions Judge, it was contended that the notice by the Collector was given only to Petitioner No. 1 and since the notice was not given to Petitioner No. 3, the order of confiscation was bad. This contention was negatived by the learned Sessions Judge who held that in the case of a partnership business, each partner is an agent of the other and, therefore, if 3 notice is served on one partner, it must be deemed to have been served on the partnership firm. The second contention which was raised before the Sessions Judge was that under the order, a list of prices had to be displayed only of washing soaps of two manufacturers and toilet soaps of two manufacturers and, therefore, if any breach was committed, soaps of only two manufacturers could have been confiscated. The learned Sessions Judge held that the Petitioners having failed to display the prices as required by the Order on the board, the soaps of all kinds that were seized, were liable to be confiscated and that it was not for the Collector or the Appellate Court to decide which of the two kinds of soaps should have been displayed. The Sessions Judge, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioners. This Petition is now filed challenging the orders of the Collector and the Sessions Judge.