Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 463 (ORI)

Bichitrananda Mohanty v. Collector, Keonjhar

2006-06-28

L.MOHAPATRA

body2006
ORDER 28.6.2006 — This writ application is directed against the order dated 11.5.2006 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. Facts leading to initiation of the aforesaid case is that on 24.2.2006 while a joint checking was being conducted on National High Way No.6 near Dangarapada, sample of fuel was drawn from the bus bearing registration No.OR-09-1827 and it was found that the oil tank of the bus contained 20 litres of kerosene. The bus as well as kerosene were seized and the vehicle was handed over to the Town Police Station for further investigation and initiation of proceeding under Section 6-A as well as under Sec¬tion 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The proceeding was initiated for contravention of Clause 8 of Orissa Kerosene Con¬trol Order, 1962 read with Clause 3 of Kerosene Control Order (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price), 1993. In the said proceeding the petitioner who is the owner of the bus filed an application for release of the vehicle. While deciding the aforesaid application learned Collector concluded the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and directed confiscation of the vehicle. However, learned Collector in view of the provisions contained in Section 6-A of the Act directed the petitioner to pay a fine of rupees one lakh and furnish property security (immovable) to the tune of rupees seventy-five thousand in lieu of confiscation. 3. Shri Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid order on the ground that while consider¬ing application for release of the vehicle learned Collector could not have concluded the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act. He further contended that if the Collector concluded the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act there was no reason for him to impose conditions, such as payment of fine of rupees one lakh and furnishing of property security of rupees seventy-five thousand. Learned counsel also referred to the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Act and submitted that if fine is imposed in lieu of confiscation, same shall not exceed the market price of the essential commodity seized. In view of such provision Sri Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that 20 litres of kerosene having been seized, fine imposed by the Collector is beyond the purview of the statute. In view of such provision Sri Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that 20 litres of kerosene having been seized, fine imposed by the Collector is beyond the purview of the statute. Learned Additional Government Advocate in reply submitted that if the order is construed to be an interim order of release of vehicle pending disposal of the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act no fault can be found with the said order. If the Court construes the order to be a final order in a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act, the fine imposed is definitely beyond the purview of the statute. 4. From the last but one paragraph of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Collector in the aforesaid pro¬ceeding directed confiscation of the vehicle as well as kerosene. In view of the above, the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act was finally disposed of. Second proviso to Section 6-A(1) pre¬scribes that in case of a vehicle used for carriage of passengers on hire, the owner of such vehicle shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle. In view of the aforesaid provision, the fine in lieu of confiscation could not be more than the market price of kerosene seized on the date of seizure. In view of the above provision, the order directing payment of fine of rupees one lakh and to furnish of property security to the tune of rupees seventy-five thousand is without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the provisions as stated earlier. In this connection reference be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Avatar Singh Marwah vs. State of Orissa and two others, reported in 2005 (I) OLR 694 . 5. I, therefore, set aside the aforesaid part of the order imposing fine in lieu of confiscation and further direct the learned Collector to pass orders in terms of the aforesaid provi¬sion and the petitioner be given liberty to deposit the fine. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Application disposed of.