2002 Supreme(AP) 1170

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.ANANDA REDDY
Samudrala Venkateswar Rao, Managing Partner, Maruthi Traders, Khammnm Dist. - Appellant
Versus
Government of India, Ministry of Agrl.Dept.of Food, New Delhi - Respondent
Decided On : 10-03-02

Headnote:

Civil Law – Civil Matter - Commodities Act, 1955 - sec. 6-A, Sec. 6-B - Petitioner is managing partner of firm M/s. Hanuman Cotton Jinning, dal and Groundnut Oil Mill (Maruthi traders), Yerrupalem village and Mandal, khammam District - It is stated that apart from petitioner even other partners were also having valid licenses to do business in edible oils, pulses etc. , issued under provisions of Andhra Pradesh scheduled Commodities (licensing and distribution) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to the Control Order,1982 - Material on record shows that inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil supplies Department, Khammam, on receipt of credible information that (the proprietor, as referred in panchanama, of) m/s. Hanuman Cotton Jinning, Dal and groundnut Oil Mill, (Maruthi Traders), yerrupalem village is indulging in clandestine business of edible oils, inspected premises along with other staff of civil Supplies Department - At time of inspection, petitioner himself was present at business premises and on verification of ground stock and books of account maintained by petitioner, inspecting authorities noted certain variations that petitioner was holding excess stock of 1308. 15 quintals of groundnut pod and oil seeds - In sofar as oils are concerned, inspecting authorities did not show as per chart prepared in panchanama any excess. In fact, in panchanama - It was noted that groundnut oil stock available was within allowed stock but insofar as oil seeds are concerned, as noted earlier, 1308. 15 quintals was excess, and said holding of excess stock contravenes Clause-11 (iii) of Control Order, 1982 - Inspecting authorities also noticed that petitioner, who is a producer, was also having license for wholesale as well as retail business in edible oils, pulses, and as he was not maintaining separate registers for production, wholesale and retail, same contravenes Conditions 3 (i) (iii) and (iv) of license conditions of Control order, 1982 as well as Sections 7 and 8 of essential Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to the EC Act ). Therefore, inspecting authorities seized entire stock, worth and petitioner was also arrested for alleged contravention - Case was registered under Sec. 6-A of E. C. Act and a notice was issued under Sec. 6-B calling upon petitioner to give explanation why seized stock should not be confiscated - Petitioner filed his explanation disputing allegations - Petitioner also contested claim of authorities that non- maintenance of separate registers would amounts to contravention of clauses of Control Order, 1982. According to petitioner there is no requirement of maintaining separate registers as it was not specifically provided either under clauses of Control Order, 1982 or under conditions of license - Contravention and hence sought for dropping of Section 6-A proceedings - Joint Collector, however, after considering contentions, did not agree with contentions of petitioner and therefore, ordered confiscation of entire seized stock, including 199 quintals of green gram, on ground that such quantity of green was kept in unauthorized go down, which also contravenes Control Order, 1982 - Aggrieved by that, petitioner carried matter in appeal to commissioner of Civil Supplies, appellate authority, and reiterated contentions that are advanced before joint Collector - Appellate authority, though did not agree with contentions of petitioner, but, however, modified order of confiscation to extent of 602. 42 quintals of edible oil seed and 199 quintals of green gram - Aggrieved by that, petitioner has come up with present writ petition – Held, Court says that it is contention of learned counsel that there is no shortage of edible oil seeds, nor was there any price control with reference to edible oils and oil seeds - Further, entire stock held by petitioner was shown in register maintained by him - In light of above facts, contention of petitioner is that even assuming that there is contravention of some of clauses of Control Order, contraventions are either technical or trivial nature and therefore, confiscation of entire excess stock of edible oil seeds made by authorities is illegal and unjust - Even with reference to green-gram, contention of petitioner is that though stock was kept at Central warehousing Corporation, Vijayawada, it is shown as part of stock, making necessary entries in register and therefore, even alleged contravention of keeping stock in an unauthorized premises is only a technical violation as stock was in fact kept in a State-owned go down and not in any other private premises - Even with reference to this item also, contention of petitioner is that this commodity is neither in short supply nor any price fixation was made by State government - When such commodities are available in plenty, which are freely sold and purchased in market, there is no justification for ordering confiscation of said items - Considering nature of contraventions and in light of decisions, where it was held that confiscation of entire seized stock is not proper and just for any and every contravention; in instant case, though inspecting authorities inspected premises on allegation that petitioner was carrying on clandestine business, there is absolutely no reference to any such clandestine business being carried on by petitioner - In fact, learned counsel contended that when there is no such clandestine business being carried on by petitioner, entire proceedings are liable to be quashed - In any case, as petitioner s stocks were seized, as early as and finally they were disposed of and sale proceeds were kept with respondent authorities and denied said amount to petitioner for all seven years and petitioner was also made to pursue litigation for all these seven years - That itself would be sufficient punishment to the petitioner and therefore, it would not be proper to impose any further confiscation of stocks seized or its value to government - Writ Petition Allowed