Only a court has jurisdiction to impose penalties under the Essential Commodities Act; administrative authorities like a District Collector cannot.

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 Ext.P5 is a penalty or a fine need not be gone into by this Court, since the said issue has already been decided by the decision of this Court in Sunitha Jaffer v. District Collector (2023 KER 5888). In the said decision, a learned Single Judge of this Court had observed that the power to impose a penalty or fine under the Act is vested only with the Court and not with the District Collector. After referring to the various provisions of the statute, including Section 7 of the Act, which provides for the imposition of a penalty as well as Sections 11 and 6A, this Court observed that the power to impose a penalty or fine is vested only with the Court and not the District Collector. The learned Single Judge went on to observe that the power of the District Collector is only under Section 6A , which deals with confiscation of essential commodities, wherein he has an executive authority can accept fine in lieu of a vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or animals which have been directed to be confiscated.

I am in complete agreement with the observations in the said judgment. Since the impugned order Ext.P5 is identical in terms of the order that was subject matter of consideration in Sunitha Jaffer's case (supra), I am of the view that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to issue Ext.P5, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-