MADAN GOPAL BADARI NARAYANA FIRM Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND EX OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, 2nd Respondent herein, in V.10/1633/84 dated 16-2-1984 and confirmed by the Additional Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, 1st Respondent herein, in G.O. Ms. No.589, Food & Agriculture (CSI) Department, dated 10-4-1992 and quashing the same.

(2.) The petitioner-Firm is a licensed food grain dealer doing wholesale and retail business in food-grains, edible oil seeds and edible oils. On 1-2-1984 the A.G.P.O., Kakinada along with his staff conducted a surprise check on its business premises. During that surprise inspection it was found that the petitioner was not maintaining any stock register for the stocks being dealt with by it and also did not exhibit price-cum-stock board and thereby contravened the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and Condition 3 of the Licence issued under the said order. The A.G.P.O. then seized 21 quintals of rice, 7 bags of myda and 8 tins of cotton seed oil and filed a report under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short "the Act") before the 2nd Respondent. Based on the said Section 6A report, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to submit its explanation to the charge framed thereunder. The petitioner submitted its explanation. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's explanation, the 2nd Respondent held that the petitioner has contravened Clause 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and Condition 3 of the Licence granted under the said order and also contravened Clause 3 of A.P. Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966. Since there was no clandestine transaction, the 2nd Respondent took a sympathetic view and ordered confiscation of only half of the seized stocks.

(3.) Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act before the 1st respondent. That appeal was rejected in G.O. Ms. No.589, dated 10-4-1992. Both these orders are not challenged in this Writ Petition.