MANAGING PARTNER GANGARAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The question requiring determination in this revision petition relates to the scope, ambit and true interpretation of clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains Procurement (Levy) Order 1973, hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Procurement Levy Order'. For a proper appreciation of the question arising for decision in this revision petition, it is necessary to set out the material facts which are undisputed. The petitioner is a wholesale food grains dealer in Osman Gunj, Hyderabad, having a valid licence under the Andhra Pradesh Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. The District Supply Officer, Hyderabad, and the Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, checked the shop of the petitioner on 22-3-1973. They reported that the dealer had purchased 85 bags of Jawar from another dealer in Thandur, transported and sold 21 bags out of the same after the Procurement Levy Order came into force on 31-1-1973 in contravention of clauses 3 and 4 of the said Order. The enforcement officer seized the stock of 64 bags of Jawar available in the shop, On receipt of the report from the enforcement officer, the dealer was given a show cause notice by the District Revenue Officer on 12-3-1973. After the receipt of the explanation of the dealer and after hearing him in person, the District Revenue Officer ordered confiscation of the seized stocks for violation of clauses 3 and 4 of the Procurement Levy Order under section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Principal Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. It was contended before the learned Judge that the order of the District Revenue Officer was unsustainable inasmuch as the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 of the Procurement Levy Order were not attracted to the facts of this case. The submission was that the petitioner having purchased the Jawar from another dealer in Thandur and not a producer the provrsions of clauses 3 and 4 which are only applicable in cases ol purchase from the producer cannot be invoked. The learned Judge held that clause 3 would apply only to purchases from producers and that the petitioner therefore did not contravene clause 3. But as regards clause 4 he observed as follows : "But clause 4 is independent of clause 3. A plain reading of clause 4 undoubtedly proves that it is not dependent upon the purchase from producers at all as mentioned in clause 3. On the other band it deals with all cases of purchase whether it be from business man or from the producer. Clause 4 imposes a restriction on the dealer to sell or otherwise dispose of the balance of stocks unless he produces a receipt in token of having delivered the levy to the persons authorised, it is therefore clear that the dealer is required to surrender levy first and after such surrender of levy alone he is entitled to sell or dispose of the balance quantity.

(2.) For invoking clause 4 of the said order the purchase by a dealer need not be restricted to the producers alone. It applies to all classes of purchases of coarse grains by dealers be it from the producers or from business people. Thus it is clear that clause 4 comes into play even if the dealer purchases coarse grains from business man and sells them without surrendering the required quantity towards levy from out of the total quantity which he purchased."

(3.) Having so concluded the learned Judge held that the petitioner had contravened clause 4 of the Procurement Levy Order although he had not contravened clause 3. Consequently he confirmed the order of confiscation. Aggrieved against the said decision, the petitioner has now preferred this revision petition.