The petitioner was a retail distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas. On 26.11.2007, the Rationing Inspector attached to the office of the 2nd respondent inspected the godown of the petitioner and in the said inspection, irregularities were detected. On the basis of the above irregularities, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice, for which the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation. Thereafter, Ext.P3 order was passed by the first respondent, after hearing the petitioner and considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2 explanation. It was observed in Ext.P3 order that there was shortage of 103 filled LPG domestic cylinders, twelve empty LPG domestic cylinders and three empty commercial LPG cylinders. Two filled commercial cylinders (19 KG) and twelve empty commercial cylinders (5 Kg.) were found to be in excess in the inspection. The Stock Board and Stock Register were not maintained since 24.11.2007. The Back Log of filled cylinders booking were not shown since 10.10.2007. As per Ext.P3 order, the first respondent directed the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1,91,874/- within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P3 order.

2. Heard both sides.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') to award fine for the violation of Section 3 of the Act and in the said circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the order impugned and contended that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 6C of the Act.

4. It appears from Ext.P3 order that the said order was passed under Sections 6A and 6B of the Act. Section 6B of the Act provides for issuance of Show cause notice before confiscation of food grains. Section 6A(1) of the Act is the provision empowering the first respondent to confiscate the essential commodity. The 2nd proviso to Section 6A(1) of the Act provides that in case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price as on the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. Section 6A(1) of the Act or its second proviso does not empower the District Collector to give an option to pay in lieu of confiscation of essential commodity, a fine not exceeding the market value of the commodity on the date of seizure, as in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance seized along with the essential commodity. Only a limited power of sale of the commodity in the manner prescribed by S.6A (2) of the Act is granted. The power conferred by S.6A(2) of the Act to sell the essential commodity has to be exercised in public interest for maintaining the supplies and for securing the equitable distribution of the essential commodity. The above view gains support from the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal and another [1990(3) SCC 549] and State of Bihar and another v. Arvind Kumar and another [2012 KHC 4395 : 2012 (12) SCC 395].

5. In the case on hand, there can be no doubt that the 2nd proviso to Section 6A(1) of the Act is not attracted. Therefore, there was no scope for awarding fine as awarded in Ext.P3 order. The first respondent has no power to impose fine in lieu of confiscation of the essential commodity under Section 6A(1) of the Act even if an essential commodity is seized. However, in this case, no essential commodity was seized even though irregularities were detected in the inspection. On going through the provisions of Section 6A of the Act, it is clear that Section 6A of the Act does not contempl