The District Collector lacks authority to impose penalties or liabilities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner assails an order issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha, on 07.01.2017, imposing a penalty of Rs.500/- on him, as well as an amount of Rs.2,13,374/- being the cost of LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) cylinders, having fallen short on inspection. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is issued without any authority or jurisdiction.

2. Petitioner is a dealer of LPG. On 06.06.2014, there was a surprise check at his agency and certain defects were identified. Though the petitioner denies the existence of such defects regarding non-maintenance of stock register properly and shortage of commercial as well as domestic cylinders, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 02.03.2015, to which an explanation was submitted on 19.03.2015. However, without granting an opportunity of hearing, the District Collector issued an order on 04.06.2015, imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/- on the petitioner and also directing recovery of the cost of the cylinders found to be short at the time of inspection. The said order of the District Collector was challenged in W.P.(C).No.24859 of 2015 before this Court, and by judgment dated 22.09.2015, the order was set aside and a fresh decision was directed to be taken. Thereafter, Exhibit-P7 order was issued by the District Collector on 07.01.2017 again imposing a penalty of Rs.500/- and directing the cost of the missing cylinders totaling to Rs.2,13,374/- to be recovered from the petitioner. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents pointing out that pursuant to the surprise inspection on 06.06.2014 at the ‘Thiruvonam Indane Service’, it was revealed that there were serious irregularities in the supply of domestic gas cylinders by the petitioner, unauthorised out of turn delivery of refill cylinders, registering multiple bookings in the name of single customer, apart from improper maintenance of stock register. Recommendation was also made to the District Collector to take necessary action against the agency for the lapses. Pursuant to the above, a notice was issued to show cause why action should not be initiated. Subsequent to the direction in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.24859 of 2015, an opportunity of hearing was granted, and since there was no satisfactory explanation coming from the petitioner regarding the irregularities noticed, the impugned order was issued by the District Collector, which warrants no interference.

4. I have heard Sri. George Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Dheeraj A. S., the learned Government Pleader.

5. The District Collector has, in the impugned order, imposed two liabilities on the petitioner. The first imposition is the penalty of Rs.500/-, while the second is to recover the cost of the shortfall in the LPG cylinders found at the time of the inspection, which was quantified as Rs.2,13,374/-.

6. As far as the jurisdiction of the District Collector to impose a penalty of Rs.500/- is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , the District Collector has no jurisdiction or authority to impose a penalty or fine. Such a power is vested only with the Court. Reference in this context is invited to the decision in Sunitha Jaffer v. District Collector [2023 KHC Online 79] Therefore, the imposition of a penalty of Rs.500/- by the impugned order is without authority and, hence, is liable to be interfered with.

7. As mentioned earlier, petitioner has also been imposed with a liability of Rs.2,13,374/- being the value of cylinders found to be short at the time of inspection. Petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the District Collector to impose such a liability on him. On an appreciation of