JIBARDHAN SAHU Vs. COLLECTOR BARGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the writ petitions the very same order dated 19.2 -2013 passed by the Collector, Bargarh in Mjsc. Case No.15/ 2012 under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act has been challenged. This order has been annexed as Annexure -3 to W.P.(C) No.5627/2013 and Annexure -5 to W.P.(C) No.5982/2013. The former writ petition has been filed by five retailers of kerosene oil whereas the latter one has Been filed by the sub -wholesaler of Dang Depot in the district of Bargarh. Therefore, both -the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) FOR convenience the retailer -petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5627/2013 are described as "petitioners" hereinafter, whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5982/2013, who is the sub - wholesaler, has been arrayed as O.P.4 in the former writ petition and described as such.

(3.) 10.2012 the Inspector of Supplies, Bargarh submitted F.I.R. to the Collector, Bargarh, O.P.I and also prayed for interim disposal of the seized kerosene in terms of Section 6 -A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. It transpires from the impugned order that on 5.10.2012 interim disposal Order was passed by the Collector, Bargarh and the seized kerosene having been sold, the sale proceeds of Rs 1.61,681/ -was deposited in the Treasury. After having submitted the F.I.R. to the Collector, Bargarh, the Inspector of Supplies, Bargarh continued with the investigation and finally submitted a final report on 10.10.2012 before the Collector, which has been annexed as Annexure -2 to W.P. (C) No.5627/2013. The final report (Annexure -2) reveals that during interrogation of the Sub -Wholesaler (O.P.4), it came to light that the said Sub - Wholesaler received the kerosene oil stock on 28.9.2012 and on that date, the stock was verified by the Inspector of Supplies, Bargarh Block. About the availability of excess stock of 8760 litres of kerosene oil as per the book of accounts, O.P.4 explained that there was no excess stock of kerosene oil in the stock as because on 29.9.2012, he sold and issued 5900 litres to four retailers and on 30.9.2012 he sold 2800 litres to two other retailers and that those six number of retailers received the stock and signed in the Sale Register as well as in the Cash Memo as regards the receipt of kerosene oil but after receipt, the retailers expressed their difficulties for transportation of their purchased oil to their retail points due to non -availability of vehicles and other reasons. Thus, 8700 litres of kerosene oil found in excess belongs to the above six retailers, who received the same and have acknowledged receipt. It is further stated in the final report that the Inspector of Supplies during investigation verified the Sale Register maintained in the depot as well as the bill book and found that six retailers have signed in the Sale Register as well as in the Cash Memo on specified dates, as stated by the Sub -Wholesaler. He also cross -checked at the retail points of the retailers and interrogated them, who admitted to have received the stock of kerosene oil in the Sale Register of the Sub -Wholesaler depot on payment of proper cost and signed in the Sale Register about such receipt but they were unable to transport the stock due to vehicle problem and other reasons as stated in their individual statements. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that there was no allegation about any black -marketing from any retailer or from the general public and that his investigation finally revealed that the seized 8700 litres of kerosene oil belongs to six retailers. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer in his final report itself made a prayer to the Collector to take a decision and pass order to release the seized kerosene oil in favour of the six retailers.