Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 439 (ORI)

REKHA GUPTA v. COLLECTOR, BALASORE

2001-10-09

P.K.MOHANTY

body2001
P. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner assails the order of the Collector. Balasore passed under Sec. 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act directing confiscation of 25% of the seized imported R. B. D. Palmoline Oil for violation of the Orissa Pulses and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 and the Edible Oil Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, having been found by the Vigilance squad to have unloaded from a tanker and stored imported R. B. D. Palmoline Oil at Bateswar Road, a place other than the licensed premises i. e. at plot No. 541, in khata No. 500 at mouza Souelpur in violation of the conditions 2 (a) and (b) of the licence granted under Clause 4 (2) of the Orissa Pulses and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977, and being found to be packing the said oil in old used tins without obtaining registration and licence under the Orissa Edible Oil Packaging Regulation Order, 1998, a report was lodged before the Collector. Balasore, the licensing authority. The Collector, Balasore, initiated a Confiscation proceeding under Sec. 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act as against the petitioner and issued a show cause notice. The petitioner in response thereto filed her reply denying the allegation and it was her specific stand that she had long before made an application for change of location of the godown from village Souelpur to Bateswar, the place, where the commodities were being unloaded inasmuch as the Civil Supply Officer and the Inspector having inspected and verified the new place, inaction on the part of the Licensing authority in allowing such change of location, had forced her to store the oil in the godown at new place at Bateswar and for which she cannot be faulted, having violated any terms and condition of licence. It has also been stated that otherwise also in view of the proviso to Note of the licence, in Form-B even if the licensee changes the place of storage due to necessity, it is required to be notified within 48 hours and as such, there cannot be any violation, the period of 48 hours having not expired. So far as the allegation of having undertaken packaging of oil in container tins it is stated that she had filed application for registration and licence for packaging in terms of the Control Order on 2. 10. So far as the allegation of having undertaken packaging of oil in container tins it is stated that she had filed application for registration and licence for packaging in terms of the Control Order on 2. 10. 2000, but if the authorities have caused inordinate delay in issuing the licence or even in rejecting her application, packaging of palmoline oil in tin containers in anticipation of the licence, cannot be construed as a violation of the Control Order. ( 3 ) THUS, the core question that falls for consideration is as to whether in view of the fact that the petitioners application for change of place of business as well as her application for grant of registration and licence for packaging of the oil, in containers being pending disposal with the licensing authorities, quite for some time, if the licensee starts conducting business in the new place of business and packaging of the oil in tin containers in expectation of obtaining the orders there for, the Licensing Authorities would proceed as against the licensee and hold her guilty of violating the conditions of the licence granted under the Orissa Pulses and Edible Oils Dealers Licensing Order. 1977. ( 4 ) SIMILAR questions in the context of criminal proceeding was under consideration by this Court in M/ s. Gouri Shankar Traders, Rayagada, represented by Shri Ippili Lakshmana Rao v. State. It has been held that during the pendency of the application for effecting change in the place of business without disposing of the application conducting raid and holding the licensee liable for violation of the Control Order is not permissible in law. In Muralilal Jhunjhunwala v. State of Bihar and others a similar question came for consideration before the apex Court in respect of a criminal proceeding initiated for alleged violation of the Control Order. The apex Court observed that technically, the authorities may be justified in prosecuting the appellant for carrying on the business without obtaining the licence, but the appellant therein having been found to have done all that he could do under the law and he having not been told at any point of time that he is required to do anything more, directing prosecution of the appellant before rejecting the application, is arbitrary and unjustified. ( 5 ) IN the case at hand it appears from the impugned order of the Collector itself that the petitioners application for change of the place of business from plot No. 541. khata No. 500 in mouza Souelpur to the place at Bateswar wherefrom the seizure was made were under consideration, the Civil Supply Officer had inspected the place of business but neither any order rejecting the application nor an order allowing it was passed but in the meantime the premises was raided and the commodities were seized. Consequently, the prosecution has been initiated for confiscation of the goods. It also appears that for the very same reason, the petitioners application for grant of registration! licence for packaging having not been disposed of and in the meantime the authorities having detected the packaging, the Collector had taken a view that the petitioner could not be faulted and. therefore, on an overall consideration with these observation directed confiscation of 25% of the goods. A reading of the impugned order reveals clearly that the Collector was convinced from records that the applications for change of business in respect of the god own for storage of Palmoline Oil and for packaging of oil in tin containers were under consideration before the Licensing Authority quite for some time and that had not been disposed of either rejecting or granting the same and in the meantime the petitioner having stored the materials in the changed place of business the seizure was made. ( 6 ) IN such view of the matter, the order of the Collector in Annexure-3 directing confiscation of 25% of the seized commodities is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. ( 7 ) BEFORE parting with the case. I deem it appropriate to observe that very often because of the inaction, lethargy and indifference of the appropriate authorities, vested with the powers under the different Control Orders, made under the Essential Commodities Act, in dealing with the applications for grant of licence or any change in the licence and in taking prompt decisions thereon either allowing or rejecting such application in accordance with the provisions of law and on its own merit within a reasonable time many avoidable and unnecessary litigations are coming up causing loss of public time, energy and expenses. Authorities in the helm of affairs must impress upon their officers to avoid such a situation in the larger interest of the society and in a public interest in promptly considering such application within a reasonable time. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations. Petition allowed.