RAVINDUA FERTILISERS CO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a trader in fertilizers. On October 22,1983, the vigilance authorities have laid a trap, inspected the premises of the petitioner and he was found" to be selling the fertilizers in excess of the price fixed therefor and therefore seized the goods (Urea) and placed them before the Collector under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) for short, "the Act". After giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the Collector confiscated the entire 194 1/2 bags of Urea.On appeal under Section 7-C of the Act, it was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Assailing the legality of the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming that of the Collector, the writ petition hasbeen filed.

(2.) SRI Ashok, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the appellate authority is the fact finding authority constituted under Section 7-C of the Act. The authority is bound to consider the evidence in the strict sense. The evidence in this case consists of decoy witness and two panch witnesses. The Panch witnesses have supported the case of the petitioner whereas the decoy witness supported the case of the respondent. When the accounts have been verified they tallied with the defence taken and therefore it must be held on proper appreciation of evidence that there is no contravention of the Fertilizer Control Order. As a result, the seizure and confiscation are illegal, void and not binding upon the petitioner. I find no force in the contention. It is not in dispute that the statute was amended taking away the power of the Sessions Court and investing the power on the administrative officers to dispose of the appeals. As a result, the Commissioner has been constituted as the appellate authority. It is an administrative tribunal constituted under the Act, though quasi-judicial in nature. The strict evidence under the Evidence Act does not apply to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the relevant provisions, unless it is a Court within the meaning of the Evidence Act. Admittedly either the primary authority (Collector) or the appellate authority (Commissioner) are not Courts within the meaning of (he Evidence Act. Therefore, the Evidence Act in stricto sensu does not apply to the proceedings conducted by the authorities under the Act. Equally the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure also do not apply to the enquiries conducted under the Act by the authorities constituted thereunder. Therefore, the question of declaring the panch witnesses who have stated contrary to the statements recorded during the seizure proceedings hostile, does not arise. The question of declaring them hostile and cross examining them thereby does not arise and the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act is redundant. The only procedure available to the primary or appellate authority is to consider the entire evidence placed before the primary authority and in appeal. The evidence may consist of either documentary or oral evidence or both by way of memos, statements, etc. The authorities are bound to consider all the relevant evidence. While considering the evidence it is for the authorities to appreciate the evidence and come to their own conclusion. If the authorities did not consider the evidence at all, then it is a case of total non-application of mind and constitute error apparent on the face of the record. But if the authorities consider the evidence and record any finding one way or other, then it is absolutely within the scope of their enquiry of the administrative channels and come to their own conclusion. The mere possibility of coming to a different conclusion by this Court is not a ground to differ from the" conclusion reached by the Tribunals below unless the conclusion is based on no evidence. Under those circumstances, the authorities have go absolute power and jurisdiction to assess the evidence and come to their own conclusion and give reasons in support thereof. Thus considered, I find that the order is not vitiated by any manifest error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs.350/-.