BICHITRANANDA MOHANTY Vs. COLLECTOR KEONJHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the order dated 11.5.2006 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) Facts leading to initiation of the aforesaid case is that on 24.2.2006 while a joint checking was being conducted on National High Way No. 6 near Dangarapada, sample of fuel was drawn from the bus bearing registration No. OR-09-1827 and it was found that the oil tank of the bus contained 20 litres of kerosene. The bus as well as kerosene were seized and the vehicle was handed over to the Town Police Station for further investigation and initiation of proceeding under Section 6- A as well as under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The proceeding was initiated for contravention of Clause 8 of Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 read with Clause 3 of Kerosene Control Order (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price), 1993. In the said proceeding the petitioner who is the owner of the bus filed an application for release of the vehicle. While deciding the aforesaid application learned Collector concluded the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and directed confiscation of the vehicle. However, learned Collector in view of the provisions contained in Section 6-A of the Act directed the petitioner to pay a fine of Rupees one lakh and furnish property security (immovable) to the tune of Rupees seventy-five thousand in lieu of confiscation.

(3.) Shri Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid order on the ground that while considering application for release of the vehicle learned Collector could not have concluded the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act. He further contended that if the Collector concluded the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act there was no reason for him to impose conditions, such as payment of fine of Rupees one lakh and furnishing of property security of Rupees seventy-five thousand. Learned Counsel also referred to the second proviso to Section 6- A(a) of the Act and submitted that if fine is imposed in lieu of confiscation, same shall not exceed the market price of the essential commodity seized. In view of such provision Sri Samantray, learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that 20 litres of kerosene having been seized, fine imposed by the Collector is beyond the purview of the statute. Learned Additional Government Advocate in reply submitted that if the order is construed to be an interim order of release of vehicle pending disposal of the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act no fault can be found with the said order. If the Court construes the order to be a final order in a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act, the fine imposed is definitely beyond the purview of the statute.