RAM SWAROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of Collector, Aurangabad dated 15.1.2003 passed in a proceeding under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") being Case No. 2 of 2000 and the order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad as communicated to the petitioner. By the first order, the Collector has ordered not only for recovery of the value of goods seized and left in the Zimmanama of petitioner through certificate proceedings, but in the said confiscation proceedings, he has gone further and ordered for cancellation of the petitioner's retail licence granted under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. By the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, following the order of the Collector, he has cancelled the retail licence of the petitioner. The question is whether the two authorities have acted within the jurisdiction while passing the two orders as aforesaid. A counter affidavit has been filed and the parties have been heard and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) Under the Act, for any delinquency committed by a dealer, different consequences flow. His stocks, in respect of which contravention is committed, may be seized and ultimately confiscated after initiating a proceeding, as contemplated in terms of Sec. 6B under Sec. 6A of the Act. He may be liable for criminal prosecution and liable to be punished in terms of Section 7 of the Act and lastly his trade licence granted under an order made with reference to Sec. 3 of the Act may be cancelled by the designated licensing authority. So far as confiscation is concerned, the jurisdiction is exclusively that of the Collector of the district. So far as prosecution is concerned, the jurisdiction is that of the Criminal Courts. So far as the trade licence is concerned, the exclusive jurisdiction is of the licensing authority who is differently designated for different trade articles under different orders.

(3.) In the present case, commodities were seized and left at the Zimmanama (custody) of the petitioner. Proceedings for confiscation of the stocks were initiated by the Collector. A look at order dated 24.11.2000 passed in confiscation case by the Collector would show that the seized articles, which were left to the Zimmanama of the petitioner, were to be sold through other PDS shops to the consumers and this was to be ensured by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Subsequent orders including orders dated 24.8.2001 and 28.9.2001 of the Collector would show that in spite of petitioner's request, the SubDivisional Officers was taking no steps to dispose of the articles which were perishable in nature. Now by the impugned order dated 15.1.2003, the Collector, holding that as the petitioner had not deposited the amount of sale proceeds, he had mis appropriated the amount and, as such, Collector ordered for cancellation of petitioner's licence and institution of the certificate proceedings for recovery of the said amount. This part of the order is challenged on the ground that so far as cancellation of licence is concerned, the Collector had no authority to do so in terms of the Licensing Order above referred to. The licensing authority, so far as petitioner is concerned, is the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector is the appellate authority. Therefore, it is obvious and it has rightly been submitted that the order of the Collector, in so far as it directs cancellation of petitioner's licence, is wholly without jurisdiction and is fit to be quashed. I may only add that merely because a person happens to be a Collector of the district does not make him the authority to exercise all and every jurisdiction in any matter in the district. A Collector is bound by law as any other citizen. He is not above law or he is not the law.