IMPLEX AGENCIES Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner a dealer in L.P. Gas has filed this writ petition questioning the seizure of 150 filled cylinders and 240 empty cylinders by the 2nd respondent on 30-11-1993 and also the order passed by the 1st respondent on 9-12-1993 suspending the 'B' Form licence issued under the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. The seizure was effected on the ground that there was an excess of 94 filled cylinders and 57 empty cylinders over and above the stock recorded in the registers. Certain other irregularities such as improper maintenance of records, failure to deliver the refills upto 30-11-1993, etc. were also allyed. A show cause notice dated 7-12-93 proposing confiscation of the seized stock was issued by the Joint Collector. Inasmuch as the enquiry under Section 6-A read with Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act is pending and the petitioner has been given a notice of hearing already, I am not inclined to express any view on the merits of the charges. I would only direct that the final orders under Section 6-A shall be passed expeditiously without avoidable delay.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Joint Collector has already corne to a final conclusion in para 7 of the notice and therefore the petitioner may not be able to get a fair adjudication from him. In other words, the petitioner submits that there is likelihood of bias against the petitioner. No doubt, the wording used viz., 'clearly contravened' may be suggestive of the fact that the competent authority came to a conclusion without hearing the petitioner. But I do not think that bias shall be necessarily inferred by reason of employing such expression. The overall tenor of the notice indicates that it is only in the nature of a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation and the conclusions recorded in the said notice are only prima facie conclusions based upon the report of the 2nd respondent. In any case, the Joint Collector will independently adjudicate the issues involved after taking into account the representation of the petitioner without being merely carried away by the report of the 2nd respondent. This observation is sufficient to dispel any apprehension on the part of the petitioner that there may not be fair and independent adjudication by the competent authority exercising powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The ratio of the decision of Calcutta High Court in M.B. Sharan vs. Chief Commercial Superintendent, E. Rly. relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the case. It is well settled that unless there is real likelihood of bias, the proceedings initiated before the quasi-judicial authorities cannot be quashed on the basis of vague apprehensions. An inappropriate wording in the show-cause notice cannot by itself be sufficient to infer bias on the part of the Joint Collector. Hence I am not inclined to interdict the Joint Collector from proceeding further in the matter under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.