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

1969 Supreme(AP) 149

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.D.V.REDDY, SHARFUDDIN AHMED
Adapa Suryanarayana - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 11-19-69

The power to initiate proceedings, enquire and pass orders of confiscation or otherwise under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965 is vested solely in the District Collector and cannot be delegated to any other officer.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 6-A - DELEGATION OF POWERS - DISTRICT COLLECTOR - DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER - CONFISCATION OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES - PROCEDURE - NOTICE - ENQUIRY - ORDER - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

A notice was issued by the District Collector under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965, initiating proceedings for confiscation of paddy seized for contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1965. The District Revenue Officer conducted the enquiry and passed an order of confiscation. The aggrieved party challenged the validity of the order on the ground that the District Revenue Officer had no power to pass such an order.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the District Revenue Officer had no power to pass an order of confiscation under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965, as the power to initiate proceedings, enquire and pass orders of confiscation or otherwise was vested solely in the District Collector. The court further held that the delegation of powers to the District Revenue Officer under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collectors Powers Delegation Act, 1961 was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the District Revenue Officer had the power to pass an order of confiscation under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965. 2. Whether the delegation of powers to the District Revenue Officer under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collectors Powers Delegation Act, 1961 was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965 empowers the District Collector to order confiscation of essential commodities seized if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order. 2. Section 6-B of the Act prescribes the procedure to be adopted by the Collector in such proceedings, including giving notice to the owner or person from whom the commodity is seized, providing an opportunity for making a representation and being heard. 3. The second proviso to Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collectors Powers Delegation Act, 1961 provides that where the District Collector exercises his powers in a case, the Joint Collector or other officer authorized under the section shall not exercise his powers in respect of the same case. 4. The object of the second proviso is to ensure that there is no conflict in the exercise of powers in a single case and that the person who initiates the proceedings should continue it and pass final orders in the matter.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of confiscation passed by the District Revenue Officer and remanded the case to the District Collector for disposal according to law, after further enquiry.

A. D. V. REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE short point to be determined in this case is whether on a notice issued by the District Collector initiating proceedings under section 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a final order of confiscation can be passed by the District Revenue Officer.

( 2 ) ON 2-2-1969 at about 6-30 A. M. the Assistant Grain purchasing Officer, Chintalapudi and his staff found eleven carts loads containing in all eighty bags of paddy being transported in the outskirts of Chinnampalli village in West Godavari District. On his enquiry, it was found that they were being transported to Khammam district without a requisite permit in contravention of Section 3 of the andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) order, 1965. The paddy was therefore seized and further proceedings were initiated. The District Collector, West Godavari then issued a notice dated 1-3-1959 to the persons concerned with the transport to show cause why the paddy of eighty bags seized by the Assistant Grain purchasing Officer should not be confiscated to Government under section 6 (A) of the Act for the contravention of Section 3 of the andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on movement) order, 1965. They were asked to appear before the Collector for this enquiry on 17-3-1969. Thereafter enquiry was held by the District revenue Officer, West Godavari and by his order dated 21-4-1969 relying on the alleged statements made by the cart-men at the time of seizure to the Grain Purchasing Officer and on his own personal inspection of the locality held that there was a contravention of clause (3) of the Audhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on movement) Order, 1965, and directed the confiscation of the stock of 80 bags of Paddy of 76 kgs. each to Government under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, The aggrieved party filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, West Godavari and he confirmed the order of confiscation. Hence this petition to revise that order.

( 3 ) THE only point urged in this revision case is that the district Collector is the only person authorised under Section 6-A of the Act to initiate prcceedings, enquire and pass any orders of confiscation or otherwise that the order passed by the District revenue Officer is invalid as he has no powers to pass such an order, and that order is liable to be quashed and the paddy seized should be dirtcted to be returned to the party.

( 4 ) SECTION 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act stipulates that the Essential Commodities seized should be produced before the collector of the District in which the commodities were seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of any order, the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized. Form this it is contended that the person who has been authorised to pass an order of confiscation is only the Collector of the District and this power cannot be delegated to any person and if there was any such delegation, the exercising of such power by virtue of that de lega tion is illegal. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner- chose to rely on. the decisions in sambhunath V. STATE and HARICHAND AGGARWAL V. BATALA ENGINEERING CO :, LTD. , On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State contends that the delegation in this case has been made by virtne of a notification issued under the powers vested in the State Government under Section 3 of the Andhra pradesh District Collectors powers Delegation Act, 1961 and therefore the exercise of the power by the District Revenue Officer is valid. We do not think it necessary to determine the large question as to whether any of the powers of the District Collector under Sec. 6-A of the act can be delegated to any other Officer Under Section 6-A of the Act the Collector is empowered to direct confiscation if the



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 Back to top