Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 130 (MP)

Dhanjibhai Aashubhai v. State of M. P.

1994-02-15

M.W.DEO, V.D.GYANI

body1994
JUDGMENT The petitioner is a manufacturer of Dal having his business at Kalapipal Mandi District Shajapur. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Appellate order dtd. 25.4.90 passed by the Respondent State (filed as Anx P. 35) to the petition. By order dtd. 19.2.93 a show cause notice was issued against admission to the respondents. The respondent-State has filed its reply to the show cause notice. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that Rs. 15,000/- of fine as imposed by the respondent State is beyond the jurisdiction of authorities of Respondent State. Law does not provide such imposition of fine. A few facts need to be noted at this stage. Tahsildar, Kalapipal, inspected petitioner's factory on 30.1.90 and found that the petitioner was manufacturing Dal without a valid licence therefor. Just within a month from the publication of Notification in the Gazette, the petitioner applied for licence to the authorities concerned four days of its being displayed in the Collectorate notice board, it was issued. The Tahsildar, on inspection seized Dal and placed the whole record before the Collector who after issuance of Notice u/s 6 (b) of the Essential Commodities Act, passed order dtd. 6/7.2.90 filed as Anx. P. 36 ordering confiscation of the Gram Dal, in question, An appeal was preferred to the State as provided under Sec. 6 (c) of the Act, wherein the impugned order Anx. P. 1 has been passed imposing fine of Rs. 15,000/- in respect of confiscation of the commodities. A reference was made to the proviso to Se. 6 (a) of the Act. This provision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there was no question of transportation. A mere reading of Sec. 6 (a) of the Act, it would be clear that it does not empower the authorities to impose any fine. All that can be done by the Licencing Authority, the Collector, is confiscation of commodities seized and placed before him for disposal. The imposition of fine as has been done by the respondent State, is not supportable by any authority of law. It is liable to be quashed on this short ground alone, and is accordingly quashed. The petition is allowed. The amount of fine, if paid/deposited, be refunded to the petitioner, after verification.