JAWAHAR BROTHERS Vs. CHIEF RATIONING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the seizure of the essential commodities held by the petitioner.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner is a firm having licence under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers' (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 to carry on business at premises No. 15-9-48, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad. In the same premises, another firm Nanakram Hanuthram has also been licenced to carry on business. On 13-7-1995 at 12.15 p.m. the Inspector of Vigilance visited the premises and searched the same. Sri Devender Kumar, who was a partner of both the firms produced the records viz., stock registers, bill books, purchase bills etc., as well as the licences. The Inspector "hecked the documents and took an inventory of the stock. According to the panchanama, there was a slight variation which was within the permissible limits taking each firm as a separate entity. He also found that 215 bags of green peas under invoice dated 1-7-1995 received by Nanakram Hanuthram was entered in the register only on 13-7-1995; another 215 bags of green peas received by Jawahar Brothers under invoice dated 5-7-1995 was not entered in the stock-register. He recorded in the panchanama that "though these two loads are taken into consideration they are giving suspicion of their genuineness on account of the abnormal delay in receiving them". The partner explained that he received the stocks on 13-7-1995 but could not make an entry because he was busy with customers. The panchanama recorded that in view of the above facts, the enqui ry was not completed and further follow-up action will be taken in due course after further enquiry. Stating thus, the ground stocks except wheat were seized.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the seizure and pleads that the total variation of the stocks was less than five quintals which is permissible under the control orders and there was no contravention for which the goods could be seized. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that seizure was illegal because there was no finding of contravention while on the contrary there was a finding that the variation was within the permissible limits; that no statutory provision which was contravened had been mentioned in the panchanama; and further, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in East India Commercial Company vs. Collector of Customs, it was submitted that there cannot be a seizure for infringement of the licence, but only for infringement of the control order.