ARAVAPALLI KOTIRATNAM Vs. S I VIGILANCO CELL GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partner of a registered firm called Sri Venkateswara Dhal Company, which was having a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Lisensing Order, 1964, hereinafter referred to as 'the order' The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Guntur. visited the shop of the registered firm mentioned above and inspected the stock available in the godowns and found a stock of 20 quintals, 41 kgs, of redgram dhal and 5 quintals of broken redgram dhal in door No. 16-2-91 and in godown Nos. 16-2-86, 16-2-87 and 16-2-88. But the registers maintained by the dealer showed a stock of 26 quintals 6 kgs of redgram. On the ground that there was a deficit of 5 quintals of 37 kgs. of redgram dhal and an excess of 5 quintals of broken redgram dhal, which were not brougnt into account and therefore there was a contravention of the conditions of the licence issued to the firm, the Sub-Inspector of Police seized the stocks found in the godowns and submitted a report to the Collector for taking action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Acs, 1955. On receipt of the report notice was issued to the petitioner, who was one of the partners of the firm and in whose presence the inspection was made by the Police, to show cause why confiscation of the goods seized cannot be ordered as provided under Section 6 A.

(2.) The petitioner submitted a written explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the District Revenue Officer, ordered confiscation of the stocks seized bv the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Guntur. On appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Sessions Court, Guntur the order of consfiscation was confirmed. Aggrieved by the order of confiscation made by the District Revenue Officer, Guntur, and as confirmed by the Sessions Court Ountur, this revision case is fied Sri K. Venkataramaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, while arguing that there was no contravention of any of the conditions of the licence has also submitted placing reliance on a Bench judgment of this Court (by Sri A. D. V. Reddy, J., and myself) in Crl.R.C. Nos. 585, 679 and 874 of 1969 dated 17th July, 1970, that contravention of the conditions of the licence does not tantamont to contravention of the Licensing Order itself and therefore even assuming that there wes contravention of the conditions of the licence, it does not attract the penal provisions of Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act. It is true that this Court in the Bench decision referred to above has held so purporting to follow two Supreme Court decisions in Boothalinga Agencies v. V. T. C. Periaswami Nadar (1), and East India Commercial Co.. Ltd , Calcutta v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta (2) No doubt the above two decisions of the Supereme Court are an authority for the proposition that a mere infringement of the conditions of a licence will not tantamount to infringement of the Order itself under which it is issued. But having regard to the provisions of the Order itself any violation of the conditions of the licence issued thereunder may amount to violation of the Order itself. Both in this case and in the Bench judgment referred to above, we are concerned with the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. CIause 3 (1) of that Order is in the following terms : "No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with terms and conditions of a licence issued in this bebaff by the licensing authority".

(3.) Under this clause, carrying on business except under and in accordance with terms and conditions of a licence issued under the Order is prohibited. Therefore, if any businesses carried on in contravention of the terms and conditions of a licence issued under this Order, it would be in contravention of clause 1 (1) itself which means in contravention of the Order itself. Therefore, in the case as well as in the case before the Bench the contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence amounted to contravention of the Order itself, in which case all the penal consequences provided under the Essential Commodities Act would follow. The two Supreme Court decisions referred to above did not go to the extent of saying that even if having regard to the terms of a particular Order, any contravention of the conditions of the licence issued in that behalf also amounts to contravention of the Order itself it would not amount to contravention of the Order and even then it can only be taken as contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence only. As a matter of fact, in the latter Supreme Court decision the contrary was held. In that case the facts are: The appellant before the Supreme Court carries on business in the manufacture and sale of coffee powder. He was for this purpose importing chicory under actual user's licence issued by the Government of India. He received a consignment of chicory in December, 1955 and they were cleared on 20th December, 1955. The case of the respondent, in that case, was that the appellant agreed to sell the consignment to him under an agreement dated 26th November, 1955, after taking an advance of Rs. 7,500. The respondent paid another sum of Rs. 20,000 on 23rd December, 1955, after the goods arrived and were cleared on the representation that delivery would be given in one month. When the appellant committed default the suit was filed. The suit was contested on the ground that the contract was illegal and therefore void. The question considered by the Supreme Court in that appeal was whether the contract was iu violation of the restrictions placed by the Imports and Experts (Control) Act, 1947 and the notifications issued thereunder and in consequence whether it was void and illegal and a claim for breach of such a contract was maintainable.