Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.MADHUSUDAN RAO, S.OBUL REDDY
K.Venkataratnam - Appellant
Versus
District Revenue Officer, Guntur - Respondent
Decided On : 11-27-74
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - LICENSING ORDER - SEIZURE OF FOODGRAINS - SALE OF SEIZED COMMODITIES BEFORE COMPLETION OF ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 6-A - VALIDITY - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE - ARTICLES 19 (1) (F) AND (G), 31 (2) - INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISPOSAL OF SEIZED COMMODITIES - POWER OF LICENSING AUTHORITY OR COLLECTOR - IMPLIED POWERS - REASONABLENESS OF INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a holder of two licenses under the Andhra Pradesh Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, challenged the seizure of food grains by the District Revenue Officer on the ground that he had violated Clause 7-A of the Licensing Order by not maintaining a stock book. The petitioner denied the allegation and claimed that he maintained a regular stock register and other necessary records. The District Revenue Officer, without providing notice to the petitioner, directed the sale of the seized food grains. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the sale of the seized stocks, contending that the District Revenue Officer had no power to sell the seized commodities before an order of confiscation was made under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act), and that the sale violated Articles 31 (2) and 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the District Revenue Officer had the implied power to make interim arrangements for the disposal of the seized essential commodities, including sale, without notice to the dealer, pending enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act. The court reasoned that the power to conduct an enquiry under Section 6-A included the power to make incidental or consequential orders, and that interim arrangements were made not only in the interests of the consumer public but also in the interests of the dealer. The court further held that the sale of the seized commodities before the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A did not affect the rights of the dealer in the property, as the sale proceeds were available in the event of his being found not guilty. The court also held that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 19 (1) (f) and (g) and 31 (2) of the Constitution were not affected, as he had been afforded a reasonable opportunity by serving a notice upon him under Section 6-B of the Act and his rights were protected under Section 6-C (2) of the Act in the event of a favorable outcome in the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Revenue Officer had the power to sell the seized essential commodities before an order of confiscation was made under Section 6-A of the Act? 2. Whether the sale of the seized commodities violated Articles 31 (2) and 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the District Revenue Officer had the implied power to make interim arrangements for the disposal of the seized essential commodities, including sale, without notice to the dealer, pending enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act. The court reasoned that the power to conduct an enquiry under Section 6-A included the power to make incidental or consequential orders, and that interim arrangements were made not only in the interests of the consumer public but also in the interests of the dealer. 2. The court held that the sale of the seized commodities before the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A did not affect the rights of the dealer in the property, as the sale proceeds were available in the event of his being found not guilty. The court also held that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 19 (1) (f) and (g) and 31 (2) of the Constitution were not affected, as he had been afforded a reasonable opportunity by serving a notice upon him under Section 6-B of the Act and his rights were protected under Section 6-C (2) of the Act in the event of a favorable outcome in the proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE seizure of foodgrain stocks by the 1st respondent (District Revenue Officer) Guntur on 9-8-1974 from the business premises of the petitioner at Ponnur, Guntur District has led to the filing of the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a holder of two licences under the Andhra Pradesh Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order) and has been doing business in food grains at Ponnur, Guntur District. The seizure of the food grains of different varieties was made on the ground that the petitioner had violated Clause 7-A of the Licensing Order inasmuch as there was no stock book kept in the business premises or his house. The report of the Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies, Guntur (2nd respondent), to the 1st respondent was that the petitioner admitted before him that such a stock book was not maintained. The petitioner denies having made any such admission. It is his case that he has been maintaining a regular stock register, which is being inspected by the Grain Purchasing Assistant, Bapatla and which he has been signing in token of his having inspected the stocks with reference to the stock register. It is further claimed that he not only maintains the stocks register, but also a day book and Ledger and as such, there was no violation of Clause 7-A of the Licensing Order. On the report of the Inspector of Police. Vigilance Cell, the District Revenue Officer issued a notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to show cause why the seized commodities should not be confiscated. The enquiry was posted to 17-9-1974. The petitioner attended the office of the 1st respondent on that day; but the enquiry was adjourned to 15-10-1974 and again to 19-11-1974. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent by his order dated 15-10-1974, directed the sale of the foodgrain stocks which were seized on 9-8-1974. It is this order directing the sale of the seized stocks that is challenged in this writ petition.
( 3 ) MR. Chowdary, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the District Revenue Officer has no power to sell, under the Licensing order, the stocks seized by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell, before an order is made under Section 6-A of the Act, that, even assuming that there is such a power, it cannot be exercised without notice to the petitioner denying him an opportunity of being heard; that the Licensing Order does not provide for acquisition or requisition of food grain stocks; and that, therefore, the sale of the seized stocks directed to be sold by the 1st respondent is violative of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution.
( 4 ) IT may be stated at the outset that the validity of the action of the District Revenue Officer in selling the food grains seized under the Licensing Order, pending enquiry into the alleged contravention of the Licensing Order under Sections 6-B and 6-A of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Obul Reddi, C. J.) was a party, in Writ Appeal No. 658 of 1974. D/- 9-9-1974 (Andh Pra) and again before another Division Bench in Writ Petns. Nos. 1501 of 1974 and 5483 of 1973, D/- 17-9-1974 (Andh Pra) and the action of the District Revenue Officer in selling the seized commodities before the completion of the enquiry under Section 6-A pursuant to a notice issued under Section 6-B was upheld.
( 5 ) MR. Chowdary, however, contended that the constitutional validity of the seizure as contravening Articles 31 (2) and 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution was not raised before the Division Bench which decided Writ Appeal No. 658 of 1974 (Andh pra.) and therefore, requested us to permit him to argue the points raised by him. The learned counsel invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench consisting of Lakshmaiah and Madhava Rao, JJ. , in Writ Petn. Nos. 1501 of 1974 and 5483 of 1973 (Andh Pra) to can
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
