DAYAL CHAND GANGA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner seeks to pray for quashing the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 2-3-1976, affirming the order of the learned Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 15. 71975, which in its turn had approved the order of the S. D. O. dated 3-1-975. IN the alternative it has been prayed that if the petition under Art. 226 is not held to be maintainable, than the petition may be treated as revision. The petitioner has brought this composite petition as there was divergence of opinion prevailing amongst the various High Courts on the point as to whether a writ petition or revision will He against the order of the Sessions/additional Sessions Judge passed under section 6c of the Essential Commodities Act. The controversy has now been set at rest by the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Thakurdas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1) wherein it has been held that the revision application will lie against the order of the Sessions Judge. Their lordships have laid down that when the Session Judge was appointed an Appellate Authority by the State Government under section 6c of the Essential Commodities Act he was constituted Appellate Authority in the Sessions Court over which Sessions Judge presides. It was further observed that the Sessions Court is constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure and indisputably it is an inferior court in relation to the High Court. Therefore, revision will lie against the order made by the Sessions Judge in exercise of powers conferred by section 6c. It was further held that in such cases the Sessions Court is not a persona designate. It is therefore now clear that revision does lie against the order of the Collector passed under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act under the new Cr. P. C. Once it is held that the revision lies then it is well settled that there will be no scope for entertaining writ petition. Accordingly this petition is being treated as a revision,

(2.) THE Enforcement Inspector of the District Supply Office on 1. 1. 1975 and 2. 1. 1975 inspected the premises of the petitioner's Firm which held a licence under the Food Grain Dealers' Licensing Order, 1964. According to the Enforcement Inspector, the petitioner's Firm had stored goods in excess of the quantities shown in its stock register. THE S. D. O. therefore, cancelled the petitioner Firm's license and forfeited the security money of Rs. 500/- to the Government. THE Firm preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. At the same time the S. D. O. referred the case to the Collector Sri Ganganagar for initiating proceedings for the confiscation of the food grains. THE Collector after completion of the enquiry ordered the confiscation of the food grains referred to above under section 6a of the Essential Commodities Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner's Firm went in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar who transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge. THE appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge did not succeed and the same was dismissed by his order dated 2 3. 1976. It is against this order that I am called upon to decide this revision.