The absence of evidence for contravention of essential commodity regulations leads to quashing of enforcement actions, reaffirming protection against wrongful allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Bivas Pattanayak, J.

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for cancellation, rescission, withdrawal and/or revocation of letter No. Jute (Mktg)/106/2015/ dated 4th February, 2016 issued by respondent no.2, Deputy Jute Commissioner, Office of the Jute Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and not to take any further action of the complaint/FIR lodged by respondent nos. 1 to 3 with the respondent no.6, Officer-in-Charge, Belur Police Station, Howrah being Belur P.S. Case No. 28/2016 dated 16th February, 2016 under Section 7 (i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. The brief fact of the case in nutshell is as follows :

(i) The petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner no.2 is one of the directors of the said company (petitioner no.1).

(ii) The petitioner no.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of jute fabric, yarns and various types of jute products including jute bags and owns a jute mill under the name and style of Ambica Jute Mills Ltd. and about 4000 workers are employed in the said mill.

(iii) The aforesaid business is carried on by the petitioner no.1-company on the basis of licences and permissions required for carrying such business.

(iv) Over the last ten years, the petitioner no.1-company has been exporting both directly and indirectly huge quantities of jute products and has acquired immense goodwill in the market. Various purchasers both domestic and foreign have awarded contracts to the petitioner no.1-company for supply of jute products.

(v) For the purpose of fulfilling its aforesaid contractual obligations, the petitioner no.1-company requires supply of substantial quantity of good quality raw jute. Such raw jute is procured from the traders and/or brokers by way of contract/ruccas.

(vi) The purchase orders/ruccas issued by the petitioner no.1-company contain a clause whereby the price was noted as ‘PTF’ i.e. ‘Price to be fixed’ which implies that the price shall be determined as per the prevailing price of raw jute during delivery. Such clause is widely prevalent and accepted and practised for trade of jute/jute products.

(vii) For purchase of raw jute in the months of October/November, 2015 in order to fulfill contracts entered with purchasers/customers, petitioner no.1-company entered into contracts/ruccas with various jute traders and/or brokers.

(viii) On 24th November, 2015, the respondent no.1-Jute Commissioner issued an order being No. Jute (Mktg)/106/2015 dated 24th November, 2015 wherein it directed that the maximum quantity of raw jute, which a manufacturer of jute textiles may have in its possession, should be equivalent to two months’ consumption requirement. The order further stated that the two months’ consumption requirement would be duly intimated and one would commence buying as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs therein. Further directions were also given in the said order to give full details of stocks, purchase, consumption etc. of raw jute as on 25th November, 2015. It was further mentioned that the limits of jute stock would not include raw jute of specified qualities which are required to meet export commitments of jute goods subject to submission of documentary evidence of exports and verification and acceptance of document