Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 651 (MP)

RAMESH CHANDRA GARG v. STATE OF M. P.

2002-07-11

RAJENDRA MENON

body2002
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order Annexure P-1 by which 130 quintals of Kabuli Chana was seized/confiscated and action was taken against the petitioner under the provisions of sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is the case of the petitioner that the truck in question carrying the aforesaid material was going from Badarwas to Delhi when it was checked on 5- 2-1999 at 11 pm. Near village Kulhari on A.B. Road and it was found that the truck was carrying the commodities without getting gate pass (Permit) from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Badarwas as required u/s 19(6) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam and Clause 16(2) of the Bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti. It was also indicated that the same amounts to breach of condition No. 15 of Licence granted to the petitioner under the M. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991. After the truck was seized, the official concerned took the truck to the Mandi and the petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- which was deposited by the petitioner as per the provisions of the Mandi Adhiniyam and the amount released from him vide Annexure P-4. It is the case of the petitioner that the violation in the instant case is under the provisions of the Mandi Adhiniyam for which he has been punished by imposing penalty. Further, if the violation is for breach of licence condition, then action has to be taken in accordance with the M. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 and no action could be taken u/s 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The respondent State has filed its return and it is contended that the action was correctly taken, the petitioner was found carrying the commodity contrary to the provisions of the statute and therefore no relief can be granted to him. That apart, it is stated that this is only a show cause notice and therefore the petition cannot be entertained at this stage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The breach alleged in the show cause notice dated 12-3-1999 Annexure P-2 is with regard to breach of licence condition and the Mandi Adhiniyam. As far as the Mandi Adhiniyam is concerned, penalty is imposed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The breach alleged in the show cause notice dated 12-3-1999 Annexure P-2 is with regard to breach of licence condition and the Mandi Adhiniyam. As far as the Mandi Adhiniyam is concerned, penalty is imposed. The notice also indicates that the petitioner has committed offence punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Penalty u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act can be imposed only if there is violation of the orders or directions issued u/s 3. Penalties under this section can be imposed only if the person contravene's any order made u/s 3. That being so, proceedings for penalty u/s 7 can be imposed only for the aforesaid breach. In the instant case, admittedly there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had committed or contravened any order made u/s 3. That being so, no proceedings can be taken against him imposing penalty u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. As far as the violation of clause 15 of the Licencing Order, 1991 is concerned, the consequences are contained in the Licencing Order itself and action can be taken only as per Order 8 of the same. It only provides for cancellation or suspension of the licence in accordance with the provisions of Order 8 of the M. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for imposing penalty u/s 7 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the show cause notice Annexure P-2 and the consequential order of confiscation Annexure P-1 are liable to be quashed. The respondents cannot take any action against the petitioner in this regard as he has not violated any order or rule issued u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The aforesaid view taken by me is further confirmed and is in conformity with the view taken by this Court in the case of M/s. Mitthanlal Siyaram vs. State of M. P. reported in 1987 Cri. L.R. (M.P.) 13 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Appavu Gounder Vs. Collector of South Arcot Dt. at Cuddalore, , wherein similar views have been taken. In view of the above, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained, the orders impugned Annexure P-1 and P-2 are quashed. The petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Collector of South Arcot Dt. at Cuddalore, , wherein similar views have been taken. In view of the above, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained, the orders impugned Annexure P-1 and P-2 are quashed. The petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed