SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 224

ASHOK BHAN, A.K.MATHUR
GOVT. OF A. P. – Appellant
Versus
V. RANGA RAO – Respondent


ORDER

1. The respondents were the writ petitioners before the High Court raising a common point as to the liability of transport contractor or a carrier in the event of confiscation of the vehicles for violation of the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980. The writ petitions were accepted by the High Court, aggrieved against which the appellants are before us by grant of special leave.

2. Heard the counsel for the appellant State of A.P.

3. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court that in the absence of violation of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), question of application of Section 6-A did not arise, is correct. Under Section 6-A first target is the confiscation of the commodity. If the commodity, as in the present case, is not liable to be confiscated, the question of confiscation of vehicles or container did not arise. The order of the High Court does not call for any interference.

4. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top