The rules of natural justice are flexible and depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and that in this case, the Collector had acted fairly and reasonably in not allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the Food Inspector or to adduce additional evidence.

Headnote:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - CONFISCATION OF FOODGRAINS - VIOLATION OF LICENCE CONDITIONS - INSPECTION OF STOCKS AND ACCOUNTS - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - CROSS-EXAMINATION AND ADDUCTION OF EVIDENCE - FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS OF CONFISCATION ORDER - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a licensed foodgrains dealer, was found to be in possession of excess stock of foodgrains during an inspection by a Food Inspector. The excess stock was seized and the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner submitted a representation denying the breach of licensing conditions and requesting an opportunity to be heard. The Collector, after considering the petitioner's representation and the report of the Food Inspector, passed an order confiscating the seized foodgrains. The petitioner challenged the confiscation order in a writ petition, alleging violation of rules of natural justice and arbitrariness.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Collector had complied with the requirements of Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act by issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Court further held that the petitioner had not requested the Collector to cross-examine the Food Inspector or to adduce additional evidence, and that the Collector had duly considered the petitioner's representation and the report of the Food Inspector before passing the confiscation order. The Court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the Food Inspector had acted outside his jurisdiction and with bias and mala fides.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had violated the rules of natural justice by not giving the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the Food Inspector and to adduce additional evidence. 2. Whether the confiscation order was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner had not requested the Collector to cross-examine the Food Inspector or to adduce additional evidence, and that the Collector had duly considered the petitioner's representation and the report of the Food Inspector before passing the confiscation order. The Court further held that the rules of natural justice are flexible and depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and that in this case, the Collector had acted fairly and reasonably in not allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the Food Inspector or to adduce additional evidence. 2. The Court held that the confiscation order was not arbitrary or unreasonable, as the Collector had considered the petitioner's representation and the report of the Food Inspector before passing the order.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Collector had not violated the rules of natural justice and that the confiscation order was not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Y. B. SURYAVANSHI, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 26-8-85, passed by the Collector Seoni, confiscating the essential commodity i. e. foodgrains under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities. Act, 1955 for contravening the provisions of Clause 3 (2) of the licence-conditions under M. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 and condition No. 3 (2) of the licence issued under the M. P. Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1977, which have been upheld in appeal before the Hon'ble Minister for Food. Government of Madhya Pradesh vide 22-10-86 under Section 6-C of the said Act.

( 2 ) (I) It is common ground that the petitioner Baijnath Kathal holds licences under M. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 and under M. P. Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1977. He has a shop in Budhwari Bazar, Seoni with Godowns in Budhwari Bazar in Ganj at Seoni and at Ugli. The last two places i. e. Ganj and Ugli are said to be located at a distance of approximately 3 and 78 Kilo-metres from the Budhwari shop. (ii) Respondent No. 1 Shri M. K. Qureishi is one of the Food Inspectors at Seoni. It is further admitted that the said Food Inspector visited the shop premises on 8-7-84 for inspection of the shop and godowns. Under Condition No. 10 of the licence, it is enjoined that "the licensee shall give all facilities at all reasonable times to the licensing authority or any officer authorised by it or the State Government for the inspection of his stocks and accounts at his shop, godown or other place used by him for the storage, sale or purchase of foodgrains and for the taking of samples of foodgrains for examination. " Respondent No. 1 Food Inspector inspected the register of daily accounts of foodgrains maintained at the shop. Thereafter, along with the petitioner, the Food Inspector proceeded to the Godown located in the mill area belonging to Damodar Prasad but it was found locked. The Food Inspector, because of the non-availability of the keys of the godown about which the versions of the parties are divergent sealed it on 8-7-84 so that it could be inspected subsequently. The other three godowns except the above one, were inspected. According to the entries in the stock register for 8-7-84, the opening stock of Kanki was shown as 439 Quintals 40 Kgs. and that of wheat : 14 Quintals 40 Kgs. The petitioner who was present throughout, stated that there were no other transactions of sale/ purchase. On inspection and physical verification of the stock on 8-7-84 of the three godowns, the wheat was found to be 14. 8. 0 Quintals and Kanki in 377 bags. The petitioner then stated that 62 bags are in the other Godown at Ganj. To recall, that Godown was not and could not be inspected on 8-7-84 because of the non-availability of the keys. (iii) Subsequently, on the next day i. e. 9-7-84, (according to the respondents at 1 O'clock noon) the seal of the godown was broke open and on physical verification the Food Inspector found the following stock.

Kanki

Quintals

Wheat

Alsi

Rice

Tevda

Masoor

Batra

Udad Dal

1. 50

This entire quantity (except Kanki 62 Quintals) was found in excess vis-a-vis stock register. It was seized, and given back on Supradginama to the petitioner by the Food Inspector. (iv) Shri Qureishi, Food Inspector submitted his report dated 15-7-84 to the Collector along with the documents viz. the seizure memoranda dated 8-7-84 and 9-7-84, Supradginama, the statements recorded by him, the Dalhan and Tilhan registers relating to the entries from 1-1-84 to 8-7-84 and the bill book. The Collector, Seoni u/s. 6-B of E. C. Act issued a notice in writing informing the petitioner of the grounds on which he proposed to confiscate the essential commodities and further directed the petitioner to make a representation in writing. He further specified that if the petitioner desires

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1989 Supreme(MP) 83

High Court Of Madhya PradeshB. C. VARMA, Y. B. SURYAVANSHIBAIJNATH KATHAL - AppellantVersusM.K.QUREISHI - RespondentsMISC. PETN. 259 Of 1987Decided On : 03/09/1989

The rules of natural justice are flexible and depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and that in this case, the Collector had acted fairly and reasonably in not allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the Food Inspector or to adduce additional evidence.

Cases Referred (9)

Judicial Analysis

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
B. C. VARMA, Y. B. SURYAVANSHI
BAIJNATH KATHAL - Appellant
Versus
M.K.QUREISHI - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 259 Of 1987
Decided On : 03/09/1989