GODAVARI OIL DISTRIBUTORS Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises a very important point with regard to the applicability of A. R Petroleum Products Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the State Order) which was promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to a person like the petitioner, who is carrying on business in Kerosene as a parallel marketeer under the provisions of Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Order), which is an Order promulgated by the Central Government in exercise of the powers contained under Section 3 of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner is a wholesale distributor of Kerosene purchased from Vishaka Petroleum Products Private Limited under the parallel marketing system for East Godavari. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in Cr. No. 4/ VC-KDA/95 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, East Godavari District accusing of violation of Clauses 12 and 20 of the State Order read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Act and also conditions 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12 of the licence issued under the State Order. Violation alleged is that the petitioner was not maintaining true and correct accounts and indulging in clandestine business by diverting the Kerosene in the black-market for unjust enrichment. 12,074 liters of kerosene, along with tanker worth Rs. 5,93,497-40 ps. was seized and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated.

(3.) WE are not entering into the details of the commission of the alleged violation for the reason that this writ petition was filed questioning the very seizure and initiation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. However, it is stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, as no stay was granted with regard to the proceedings and stay was only confined to the sale of the seized commodity, the proceedings went ahead culminating into confiscation order. But that depends upon the adjudication of this case, as, if the validity of the power stands, this confiscation order sustains or otherwise, the confiscation order becomes non est.