Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
BABU VARGHESE PROPRIETOR, BABU GAS SERVICES – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contests penalty under essential commodities act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. government pleader defends the collector's authority to impose fines. (Para 4) |
| 3. court reiterates previous judgment regarding penalty imposition. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order issued by the District Collector imposing a penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Sections 8,9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that under the Act, a penalty can be levied only by a court of law and not by the District Collector, as Section 7 deals with punishment by imposition of a penalty and Section 11 deals with cognizance by a court of law.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed in the instant case.
However, the learned Government Pleader opposed the contentions in the writ petition and stated that the impugned order indicates only imposition of a fine in contradiction to penalty and therefore, the District Collector is justified in issuing Ext.P5.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The issue raised for consideration as to whether the quantum imposed under E
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
