*Order: The petitioner is a partner of a registered firm called Sri Venkateswara Dhal Company, which was having a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, hereinafter referred to as ‘the order. The SubInspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Guntur, visited the shop of the registered firm mentioned above and inspected the stock available in the godowns and found a stock of 20 quintals, 41 kgs. of redgram dhal and 5 quintals of broken redgram dhal in door No. 16-2-91 and in godown Nos. 16-2-86, 16-2-87 and 16-2-88. But the registers maintained by the dealer showed a stock of 26 quintals 6kgs. of redgram. On the ground that there was a deficit of 5 quintals 37 kgs. of redgram dhal and an excess of 5 quintals of broken redgram dhall, which were not brought into account and therefore there was a contravention of the conditions of the licence issued to the firm, the SubInspector of Police seized the stocks found in the godowns and submitted a report to the Collector for taking action under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On receipt of the report notice was issued to the petitioner, who was one of the partners if the firm and in whose presence the inspection was made by the Police, to show cause why confiscation of the goods seized cannot be ordered as provided under section 6-A. The petitioner submitted a written explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the District Revenue Officer, ordered confiscation of the stocks seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Guntur. On appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Sessions Court, Guntur the order of confiscation was confirmed.. Aggrieved by the order of confiscation made by the District Revenue Officer, Guntur, and as confirmed by the Sessions Court Guntur, this revision case is filed.

2. Sri K. Venkataramaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, while arguing that there was no contravention of any of the conditions of the licence has also submitted placing reliance on a Bench judgment of this Court (by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, J., and myself) in Crl. R.C. Nos. 585, 679 and 874 of 1969 dated 17th July, 1970, that contravention of the conditions of the licence does not tantamount to contravention of the Licensing Order itself and therefore even assuming that there was contravention of 1 he conditions of the licence, it does not attract the penal provisions of section 6-A of the Essential: Commodities Act. It is true that this Court in the Bench decision referred to above has held so purporting to follow two Supreme Court decisions in Boothalinga Agencies v. V.T.C. Periaswami Nadar1, and East India Commercial Co., Ltd., Calcutta v. The Collector of Custom, Calcutta2. No doubt the above two decisions of the Supreme Court are an authority for the proposition that a mere infringement of the conditions of a licence will not tantamount to infringement of the Order itself under which it is issued.

* 14th August, 1973.

But having regard to the provisions of the Order itself any violation of the conditions of the licence issued thereunder may amount to violation of the Order itself. Both in this case and in the Bench judgment referred to above, we are concerned with the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. Clause 3 (1) of that Order is in the following terms:

"No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority."

3. Under this clause, carrying on business except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued under the Order is prohibited. Therefore, if any business is carried on in contravention of the terras and conditions of a licence issued under this Order, it would be in contravention of clause 3 (1) itself which means in contravention of the Order itself. Therefore, in this case as well as in the case before the Bench, the contravention of the terms and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document