HARSHA TRANSPORT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Senior Counsel Mr.E.Manohar submits that the petitioner is a Transport Contractor and he entered into an agreement dt. 7-5-1-986 for aperiod of oneyear i.e. from 1-6-1986 to31st May, 1987to transport edible oil in bulk on behalf of the respondent NO.5/A.P. Civil Supplies Corporation Limited from Visakhapatnam to various places in Rangareddy District. It is stated that the District Manager of respondent No. 5 directed the petitioner to transport Palmolein oil from Visakhapamam to various places as per the movement order dated: 15-9-86 and in turn the petitioner as a business contractor engaged sub-contractor Ramesh and Company on 9-10-1986 for transporting 1 l,010Kgs of oil in his tanker bearing No. ATT 4033 owned and possessed by the sub-contractor. The petitioner issued telegram to Deputy Tahsildar on the very same day that the oil is dispatched and it will reach within 48 hours. It is submitted that on 10-10-86 the tanker bearing No.ATT 4033 was seizedby the respondent No.4 at Mandapeta near Kakinada, East Godavari District on the ground that the edible oil was being unloaded at the shop of one Satyanaraya (a dealer under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealer's (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982) on the allegation that the said Satyanarayna colluded with the sub-countractor Rames and Company and agreed to purchase the said Palmolein oil at Rs. 15/- per KG. It is further submitted that the said Satyanarayana is not a Fair Price Shop Dealer and he does not possess the licence as required under the Card System Order. On 11 -10-86 the tanker together with edible oil was produced before the second respondent/ the District Collector, Kakinada On 20th October, 1986, the second respondent directed to dispose of the oil through fair price shops at Rs. 11.60 ps per 1 KG. It is reported that in compliance of the said order of second respondent, the entire edible oil was distributed to fair price shops in Kakinada

(2.) Mr. E.Manohar the Senior Counsel submits that as per the provisions of A.P. Schedule Commodities Dealer's (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 read with section 6-B Essential Commodities Act, 1955, notice under section 6-B was issued by second respondent to the petitioner,totheTank Owner Ramesh Kumar and to the said Satyanarayam the alleged purchaser of the oil stating as to why the Palmoiein Oil and the vehicle bearing No.ATT 4033 should not be confiscated. On 7-11-1986, the petitioner submitted his explanation and raised the plea that the second respondent has nojurisdiction to proceed against the oil which belong to the respondent No. 5 Corporation as the A.P.Schedule Commodities Dealer's (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 exempts in its application of the provisions to respondent No.5. The alleged violations cannot beasubject of 6-A proceedings under the E.C. Act and it may attract the provisions under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It is also stated that actually the notice should have also been issued to respondent No.5 which is the owner of edible oil Onl7-8-1987,the second respondent passed order confiscating the entire stock of oil after hearing the petitioner. The second respondent also passed orders for confiscation of the tanker and also imposed a fine. In the present writ petition thequestion of confiscation of tanker or imposition of fine is not questioned as the petitioner states that he has no concern with it.