K.S. JHAVERI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Pujara, learned AGP appearing for respondents.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final judgment and order dated 13.03.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8601 of 1996, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. The appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge assailing the order dated 12.7.93 passed in Adm-work-6A-Case-43/93 by the Collector, Bhavnagar, directing confiscation of 665 filled LPG cylinders and order dated 3.8.95 passed by the Joint Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department in Appeal Case No. 1093-2649-J/Appeal Application No. 451 of 1993, confirming the order passed by the Collector.

4. The facts of the present case are stated in a nutshell hereinbelow:

4.1 The appellant who claims to be a Non Trading Corporation registered under the Bombay Non Trading Corporations Act, 1959 is engaged in ship breaking business and is in need of bulk quantity of LPG and therefore applied for supply of LPG. Central Government accepted the application and issued an order for supply of 1000 Metric Tonnes every quarter with further conditions that the Association would endeavour to set up a bottling plant as early as possible, that the bottling plant to be set up by the Association should conform to all the safety requirements as prescribed by the Chief Controller of Explosives, apart from other procedural clearances from relevant authorities. Some other conditions regarding supply were also stipulated. Accordingly, the appellant established a bottling plant, purchased cylinders, started refilling cylinders and supplied the same on “no profit no loss” basis to its members.

4.2 On 30th March, 1993, certain officers from the Collectorate and Civil Supplies Department carried out an inspection and after finding that the appellant did not possess necessary license under the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles [Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration] Order, 1981 seized 665 gas cylinders. At the time of seizure, they also found that the appellant was not maintaining records as required under 1981 Control Order. The matter was reported to the Collector, who, vide his letter dated 13.4.93 issued a notice to the appellant to show cause that why appropriate steps under the 1981 Control Order be not taken and 665 gas cylinders be not confiscated. The appellant appeared before the Collector and submitted reply on 10.5.93

4.3 After hearing the parties, the Collector held that the appellant falls within the definition of the term 'dealer' and as the appellant had not procured a license, breach of 1981 Control Order had been committed. He also observed that an association of persons or a Non Trading Corporation would also be deemed to be and in fact, would be a 'seller' and as the appellant association has not obtained necessary requisite license, the goods could be confiscated. He accordingly directed confiscation. Being aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, the appellant preferred an appeal to the State Government, which came to be dismissed, therefore, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge also dismissed the writ petition.

5. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate submitted that the appellant is a non-trading Corporation registered under the Bombay Non-Trading Corporation Act, 1959. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of ‘dealer’ as defined under Clause 2(5) of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1981 Order’). Mr. Vakil submitted that though the appellant is a non-trading corporation, the appellant cannot be said to be ‘engaged in the business of’ purchase of any essential article. He submitted that undisputedly the appellant is not carrying out or engaged i