HUKUMCHAND SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition, under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16-7-1997 Annexure "P/7" passed by Collector, Rajgarh whereby, the Collector has cancelled the licence of the petitioner granted to him under Provisions of Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979 (for brevity "the Order") and also forfeited the security amount of Rs. 100/- and also confiscated seized 2510 litres kerosene. Against this order, the petitioner went up in Appeal before the Commissioner (Revenue) and the same was dismissed by its order dated 7th Sept. 98 Annexure "P/10". This order was challenged in Revision before the State Government (Ministry of Food Civil Supplies & Consumers Protection Department) vide case No. F/6-45/98/29/2. This revision has also been dismissed.

(2.) Facts in brief, giving rise to this petition are that on 1st February, 1996, Food Inspector, Mr. Gupta, inspected Fair Price Shop of the petitioner at 2.15 p.m. On verification, he found that on stock board, stock of 2540 litres kerosene was shown and on daily stock register, opening stock on 1-2-1996 was not written and closing stock on 31-1-1996 was shown 2540 litres. On asking the petitioner/Kerosene dealer, could not produce duplicate copy of weekly statement, which was required to be sent to the Food Department of the concerned District by the petitioner. He also found, as disclosed by the petitioner, deposit of price of kerosene oil of Rs. 5146/- in the month of December, 1995 through challan No. 91 dated 1-2-1996 but no challan was deposited for the month of Nov. 1995. On inspection of daily sale- register on 31-1-1996, 2383 litres of kerosene oil was shown to be sold therefore, he found difference between the stock register and physical verification of the stock. On physical verification, stock was found 2510 litres of kerosene oil. 30 litres of kerosene oil was found less than the closing stock and thereafter opening stock. The Food Inspector prepared Panchnama Ex. P/2, mentioning all these details. He seized 2510 litres kerosene oil; stock register; and sale register; the same were given on Supurtginama to the petitioner in presence of witnesses. Collector, Rajgarh/Licensing Authority issued notice dated 6-3-1996 Annexure "P4" to the petitioner, to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled; security be not forfeited and seized kerosene oil be not confiscated as per provision under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act") and the matter be not sent to Court for prosecution. The petitioner was also asked to submit his reply within 7 days from the date of service of this notice.

(3.) Mr. Piyush Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the show cause notice, Annexure "P/4" itself was defective for the purpose of initiation of confiscation proceedings of the seized essential commodity i.e. Kerosene. He has submitted that the Collector has power under Section 6-A of the Act after receipt of report of seizure of kerosene oil as per Order made under Section 3, whether or not the prosecution is instituted for contravention of such order, Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity So seized to be produced for inspection before him and if he satisfies that there has been contravention of the order, may order for confiscation. In the instant case, the Collector has issued show cause notice dated 6-3-1996, Annexure "P/4". On perusal of this notice, it is found that no where it is mentioned about production of material or document before him for consideration by the Food Inspector or Inspecting Authority of the Food Department. It has also not been mentioned that the Collector perused the documents prepared by the Food Inspector at the time of Inspection of the shop of the petitioner. It has also not been Indicated therein that the report of inspector or seizure of kerosene oil, was produced for inspection before him without unreasonable delay by the Food Inspector. He has simply mentioned that on 1-2-1996, Food Inspector, Mr. Gupta, along with other officials of the Food Department, inspected the shop of the petitioner and found certain discrepancies/illegalities.