SAMUDRALA VENKATESWAR RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner questioning the order of the 3rd respondent confirming the order of confiscation of the seized essential commodities.

(2.) The petitioner is the managing partner of the firm M/s. Hanuman Cotton Jinning, Dal and Groundnut Oil Mill (Maruthi Traders), Yerrupalem village and Mandal, Khammam District. It is stated that apart from the petitioner even the other partners were also having valid licenses to do business in edible oils, pulses etc., issued under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to 'the Control Order,1982'). The material on record shows that the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Khammam, on receipt of credible information that (the proprietor, as referred in panchanama, of) M/s. Hanuman Cotton Jinning, Dal and Groundnut Oil Mill, (Maruthi Traders), Yerrupalem village is indulging in clandestine business of edible oils, inspected the premises along with other staff of the Civil Supplies Department on 15-4-1995. At the time of inspection, the petitioner himself was present at the business premises and on verification of the ground stock and the books of account maintained by the petitioner, the inspecting authorities noted certain variations that the petitioner was holding excess stock of 1308.15 quintals of groundnut pod and oil seeds. In sofar as the oils are concerned, the inspecting authorities did not show as per the chart prepared in the panchanama any excess. In fact, in the panchanama, it was noted that the groundnut oil stock available was within the allowed stock but insofar as the oil seeds are concerned, as noted earlier, 1308.15 quintals was the excess, and the said holding of excess stock contravenes Clause-11 (iii) of the Control Order, 1982. The inspecting authorities also noticed that the petitioner, who is a producer, was also having license for wholesale as well as retail business in edible oils, pulses, and as he was not maintaining separate registers for production, wholesale and retail, the same contravenes the Conditions 3 (i) (iii) and (iv) of the license conditions of the Control Order, 1982 as well as Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to 'the EC Act'). Therefore, the inspecting authorities seized the entire stock, worth Rs.30,26,960.00 and the petitioner was also arrested for the alleged contravention. Thereafter a case was registered under Sec.6-A of the E.C. Act and a notice was issued under Sec.6-B calling upon the petitioner to give explanation why the seized stock should not be confiscated. The petitioner filed his explanation disputing the allegations. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to hold the stock of 1000 quintals of edible oil seed as a wholesaler and 100 quintals as a retailer, apart from 366.85 quintals as producer. Though according to the authorities, the seized stock of groundnut pad and oil seeds was to the extent of 2,225 quintals, the petitioner disputed that insofar as the sunflower seed is concerned, it could not be treated as edible oil seeds. With reference to the groundnut pad, it could not be treated on par with the groundnut seed but only 75% of it should be counted, while totaling the groundnut seed stock and if so there is no excess as the said stock would come below 1000 quintals. Therefore, there is no contravention of any of the Clauses of the Control Order, 1982 or any conditions of the license. The petitioner also contested the claim of the authorities that the non- maintenance of separate registers would amounts to contravention of the clauses of the Control Order, 1982. According to the petitioner there is no requirement of maintaining separate registers as it was not specifically provideu either under the clauses of the Control Order, 1982 or under the conditions of license. Therefore, there is no contravention and hence sought for dropping of Section 6-A proceedings. The Joint Collector, however, after considering the contentions, did not agree with the contentions of the petitioner and therefore, ordered confiscation of the entire seized stock, including 199 quintals of green gram, on the ground that such quantity of green was kept in unauthorized godown, which also contravenes the Control Order, 1982. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, the appellate authority, and reiterated the contentions that are advanced before the Joint Collector. The appellate authority, though did not agree with the contentions of the petitioner, but, however, modified the order of confiscation to the extent of 602.42 quintals of edible oil seed and 199 quintals of green gram. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset contended that the petitioner is a producer as well as wholesaler and retail dealer both in edible oils as well as seeds and pulses. According to the petitioner, as a wholesaler he was entitled to hold 1000 quintals and as a retailer another 100 quintals of oil seeds. Further, according to the learned counsel the sunflower oil seeds could not be treated as edible oil seeds and therefore, the sunflower oil seeds, which were included by the inspecting authority as well as the Joint Collector, have to be excluded, which contention was accepted by the appellate authority. After exclusion of the sunflower seeds, the petitioner was having only 908 quintals of oil seeds, as found by the appellate authority. Therefore, there is no excess quantity. According to the learned counsel, though the authorities referred to G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 5-11-1993 under which the quantities to be held as stock by wholesaler and retailer was reduced from 1000 quintals to 500 quintals in respect of the wholesaler and from 100 quintals to 50 quintals by the retailer, but, the said G.O., was not notified in the Gazette and therefore, the order of the authorities below is not just and proper and is liable to be quashed on that ground.