EASTERN BIHAR DIVISIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Vs. CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ applications have been heard together as they challenge the validity of the notices of demand issued by the Enforcement Officer, Government of India, under the Emergency Risks (Goods) Insurance Act, 1962 (No. 62 of 1962) -- hereinafter called the 'Goods Insurance Act' -- and the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962 (No. 63 of 1962) -- hereinafter called the 'Factories Insurance Act'. This judgment will govern the disposal of the three cases.

(2.) In C.WJ.C. No. 1149 of 1969, there are two petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is the Eastern Bihar Divisional Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Bhagalpur. It is not clear as to why petitioner No. 1 has been made a party to this application. Petitioner No. 2 is a partnership firm, Messrs. Hind Hardware Stores, dealing in hardware stores in the town of Bhagalpur. The facts giving rise to this application are these: The Enforcement Officer (respondent No. 2) visited the premises of petitioner No. 2, and, after an inspection of the books of account and other documents, ascertained that petitioner No. 2 had defaulted in payment of premiums in respect of insurable goods held by it during the different quarters from the first quarter of 1963 to the second quarter of 1966. A detailed statement of the premiums in default and the compounding fee, as ascertained by the Enforcement Officer, was prepared and a copy of the same was sent to petitioner No. 2 under his letter dated the 14th of August, 1969. Petitioner No. 2 was asked to pay the amount within seven days. A copy of that letter has been made annexure 1" to the writ application. Subsequently, a notice was sent to petitioner No. 2 for payment of Rs. 630/- as premium in default and Rs. 317/- as compounding fee. Petitioner No. 2 was reminded by this notice that, if it failed to produce the proof of payment within fifteen days, necessary legal action under the provisions of the Goods Insurance Act would be taken against it. A copy of that notice has been made annexure "2" to the writ application.

(3.) In C.WJ.C. No. 671 of 1970, there are two petitioners. Himatram Kanhaiyalal, petitioner No. 1, is a registered partnership firm and it has an oil mill. Messrs. Kailash Company, petitioner No. 2, is also a registered partnership firm and it deals in wholesale cloth business at Lakhisarai. Petitioner No. 1 had taken policies under the Factories Insurance Act for all the four quarters of 1963 and had paid the premiums of Rs. 50/-, Rs. 37.50 paise, Rs. 28/- and Rs. 25/-, respectively, for the four quarters. For the first quarter of 1968 also, this petitioner had taken a policy under the Factories Insurance Act and had paid a premium of Rs. 38/- Under the Goods Insurance Act also petitioner No. 1 had taken policies for the four quarters of 1963 and had paid the premiums of Rs. 150/-, Rs. 100/-, Rs. 75/- and Rs. 60/-, respectively. It also took a policy for the first quarter of 1966 under the Goods Insurance Act and had paid a premium of Rs. 100A.