CHITTARANJAN BARUAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner carries on business of Petrol and Petroleum products under the name and style of M/s Baruah Service Station, Ambari, Guwahati, as its sole proprietor, having dealership of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division) in respect of its depot at Ambari. On 07. 06. 1997, Sri Troilukya Nath Hazarika, an Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, accompanied by one Inspector and two Sub-Inspectors of the said Department, visited the said Petrol depot and seized 15,155 litres of Motor Spirit (MS) oil lying in underground tanks, and 660 litres of Motor spirit kept in three number of drums at the said depot, a Stock Register and one cash Memo book, the seizure having been done on the allegation that the quantity of M. S. Oil actually found in the possession of the petitioner, at his said depot, was more than what his records, such as, Stock Register, Cash Memo book, etc. accounted for. Having seized the M. S. Oil, Stock Register and Cash Memo, the said Inspector gave the zimma thereof to the petitioner. Following the seizure, which had so taken place, the petitioner was served with an order, dated 12. 06. 1997, issued by the respondent No. 2, namely, Collector, Kamrup, Guwahati, directing the petitioner to show cause, within seven days, why action shall not be taken against him, in accordance with law, for maintaining false and fabricated account in violation of condition No. 3 (a) of the licence issued to the petitioner under the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 ) in short, 'control Order, 1982'), read with Clause 10 of the Control Order, 1982, and also for violation of Clause 5 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1990. The petitioner submitted, on 17. 09. 1997, his objection to the said notice of show cause denying and disputing the allegations made against him that he had indulged in malpractice or had maintained any false and/or fabricated account and/or that he was found in possession of M. S. Oil without having been able to account for. Having received the petitioner's reply to the said show cause notice, an order was passed by the Collector, on 01. 12. 1997, directing sale of the seized M. S. Oil at the Oil Company's retail price and deposit of the sale proceeds thereof into the Government Treasury until final disposal of the case. The order, so made, was claimed to have been passed under Section 6a (2) (i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, 'the E. C. Act' ). It is the direction given by the order, dated 01. 12. 1997, aforementioned, for sale of the M. S. Oil, which the petitioner has impugned, in the present revision, on the ground, inter alia, that the said order is beyond the powers of the Collector, the same is unfair and unjust.

(2.) THE respondents have resisted the writ petition by filing affidavit in-opposition, wherein it has been contended, inter alia, that the seizure of the said stock of M. S. Oil was in accordance with law, for, the petitioner, as reflected from the said notice to show cause and also the impugned order, could not account for the said stock of M. S. Oil and had contravened the provisions of law. It is the further case of the respondents that having felt satisfied that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Clause 5 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1990, as well as the condition No. 3 (a) of the licence, issued to the petitioner, under the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982, necessary sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the E. C. Act was accorded on 01. 12. 1997 and as there was scarcity of M. S. Oil and High Speed Diesel Oil, the order for sale, in the greater public interest, was made instead of letting the same lie idle.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. S. Sharma, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. A. Buragohain, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam. I have also heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, and Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel, as amicus curiae.