1988 Supreme(Kar) 543
Karnataka High Court
Anjan Setty S.R. - Appellant
Versus
Government of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 12-16-88
W.P. : 3113 of 1987
C.N.KAMATH, N.DEVDAS
The necessity of providing an opportunity for making a representation and being heard in the matter before ordering confiscation as per Section 6 (B) of the Essential Commodities Act.
Headnote:
Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation - Section 6 (B) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 6 (A) (1), Section 6 (B) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 6 (A) (1) and Section 6 (B) of the Essential Commodities Act, which outline the procedure for confiscation of essential commodities and the issuance of a show cause notice before confiscation. The court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity for making a representation and being heard in the matter before ordering confiscation. The court also highlighted that the procedure prescribed in Section 6 (B) forms an integral part of the enquiry under Section 6 (A) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was found hoarding essential commodities without the necessary license. The Deputy Commissioner ordered confiscation without issuing a show cause notice as per Section 6 (B) of the Essential Commodities Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's voluntary appearance and explanation before the issuance of a show cause notice rendered the insistence for a show cause notice as a mere formality.
Issues: The main issue was the non-issuance of a show cause notice as per Section 6 (B) of the Essential Commodities Act before the confiscation of essential commodities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the procedure prescribed in Section 6 (B) forms an integral part of the enquiry under Section 6 (A) of the Act, and the necessity of providing an opportunity for making a representation and being heard in the matter before ordering confiscation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the confiscation order without the issuance of a show cause notice.
( 1 ) 1. The gravaman of petitioner is that non-issue of a show cause notice as per section 6 (B) of the Essential Commodities act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') vitiates the impugned order of confiscation (Annexure-B) and of the appellate order, dated 22 1-1987 (Annexure- A ).
( 2 ) TAHSILDAR, Hiriyur reported to deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, on 17-5-1985 the illegal hoarding of 80 bags of ground-net seeds each weighing 85 Kgs and 20 bags of ground nut each weighing 35 Kgs, by the petitioner, without possessing necessary licence under the Kamataka edible Oil Seeds Licensing Order, 1977 and produced the seized commodity, deputy Commissioner made an interim order for disposal of the seized commodity, through public auction.
( 3 ) PETITIONER having come to know of the order, offered his explained on 7th june 1981. The explanation was that he commenced the business in anticipation of the grant of licence as he had already made necessary application to the concerned authority for grant of licence and accordingly purchased the seized commodity from M/s Bhargali and Co. , and m/s Ananthaiah. He pleaded that consideration was paid only after grant of licence on 27-5-1985 and stocks were taken to register subsequently though purchase was earlier and under those circumstances, committed no offence warranting confiscation and matter be viewed leniently.
( 4 ) SECOND respondent-Deputy Commissioner, in his order, dated 18th June 1985 afterholding that there was no justification to hoard essential commodities (edible oil seeds) in anticipation of grant ot licence and storing of edible oils exceeding 30 quintals without licence contravened Karnataka Edible Oil Seeds dealers Licensing Order, 1977 ordered confiscation. The said order has been confirmed in appeal by the State Government.
( 5 ) SRI C. N. Kamath, learned counsel for petitioner, while challenging the validity of these orders submitted that as confiscation has not been preceded by a show cause notice as contemplated under section 6 (B) of the Act. impugned orders must be declared as illegal and void. In support of this contention, he relied on a decision of this Court in Menur Madhava v State of Mysore (1970 (11 Kar. L. J. 143) and a decision in Prem Ratan Mall v Collector, Ganjam (1978 (1) Crl L J. 599 (Orissa) ).
( 6 ) FOR proper appreciation, it is necessary to extract both sections 6 (A) (1) and 6 (B) of the Act and they read thus : -"6a. Confiscation of essential commodity.- (1) Where any essential commodity is seized, in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall without unreasonable delay, be made to the collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or nor a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order consideration of - (a) the essential commodity seized ; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found ; and (c) any animal, vehicle or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act no food-grains or edible oil seeds seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oil seeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section. ""6 (B) Issue of a show cause notice before confiscation of essential commodity - (1) No order confiscating any essential commodity, package, covering receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6a, unless the owner of such essential commodity, package, covering receptacle, animal, vehicle, ves