District Collector lacks authority to impose fines under the Essential Commodities Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is running a tea stall. He is alleged to have used LPG cylinders supplied for domestic purposes, for the commercial use in his tea stall and hence those gas cylinders were seized.

2. By Ext.P3 order dated 20.04.2014, the District Collector imposed a fine of Rs.7,370/- (Rupees seven thousand three hundred and seventy only) and also directed that the seized cylinders be returned back to the manufacturing company. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.(C.) No.26853 of 2016 and by judgment dated 26.08.2016, the order of the District Collector, produced as Ext.P3 in this writ petition, was set aside. This Court also directed the District Collector to pass fresh orders in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act , after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequent to the said judgment, the District Collector passed fresh orders, which is produced in this writ petition as Ext.P9.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, stating that the petitioner was not interested in a personal hearing and hence the impugned order was passed. It is also stated that steps have been taken to recover the amount of fine imposed on the petitioner and after this Court set aside Ext.P3, a fresh notice was issued scheduling the hearing to 18.02.2017 and despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to turn up and hence the matter was considered on merits and the impugned order was passed.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, this Court notices a fundamental error in the impugned order. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 28.06.2016, this Court had set aside the earlier order issued by the District Collector. When an earlier order has been quashed or set aside by this Court, such an order cannot be in existence further. An order that has been set aside by this Court, has to be eschewed from consideration and stands effaced from the records, for all practical purposes.

5. Notwithstanding the above legal position, by Ext.P9, the District Collector had, instead of passing a fresh order on merits, after noticing the absence of the petitioner on the date of hearing, affirmed the earlier order of the District Collector without giving any reasons. An order not in existence, cannot be affirmed. Hence, the impugned order Ext.P9 is perverse, and is liable to be quashed.

6. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that the District Collector, in exercise of the powers under the Essential Commodities Act , has no power to impose fine, as held in the decision in Sunitha Jaffar v. District Collector [2023 KHC OnLine 74], such a power is vested only with a court of law.

7. Notwithstanding the above, it needs to be mentioned that the issue that arises in the instant case, relates to an incident that occurred on 01.03.2012. The impugned order has already been found to be perverse, requiring it to be quashed. The question that requires consideration is, after setting aside the impugned order whether it should be remanded back for fresh consideration or not.

8. The power under Section 6B of the Act, which was exercised by the District Collector to pass the impugned order is for confiscation of the goods that were found to be in possession, contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act . Three gas cylinders supplied for domestic purposes, were allegedly used by the petitioner for commercial purposes. According to the petitioner, those three cylinders were released to him on interim custody by the Magistrate Court in the crimina