Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 653 (GAU)

Pankaj Kumar Nath v. State of Assam

2012-06-01

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr Justice, Hrishikesh Roy 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate appears for the State Authorities. The petitioners have common interest and accordingly same submission is advanced on their behalf by Mr. Dey. The trucks of the petitioners were engaged by the Indane LPG Bottling Plant, Silchar of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to carry LPG Cylinders to Mizofed at Kolasib, Mizoram. Separate Dispatch Note(s) for each of the 4 trucks was issued at the loading point. While in transit, the laden trucks were stopped by the officials of the Food & Civil Supplies Department of Cachar District (respondent No.2 & 3) and since discrepancy in the LPG Cylinders carried by the trucks and in the Dispatch Note were noticed, the trucks along with the loaded LPG Cylinders were seized by the Superintendent of Food & Civil Supplies, Silchar on 5.6.2011. 2. Pursuant to the proceeding drawn up under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the EC Act"), the Collector, Silchar on 23.12.2011 passed an order on 23.12.2011 for confiscation of the trucks seized on 5.6.2011. In his order, the Collector recorded that Liquefied Petroleum Gas from the loaded Cylinders were transferred to empty Cylinders by tampering with their seals and observing that the vehicle owners failed to establish that they were unaware of the activities of the drivers/handyman of the trucks, all the trucks were directed to be confiscated to the State. Simultaneously the track owners were given the option to pay the fine of Rs.4 lakhs as specified by the Collector, in his order dated 23.12.2011. 3. Mr. S.S. Dey, the learned Counsel submits that Rs.4 lakhs which is total value of LPG Cylinders was erroneously quantified as fine. He refers to the 2nd Proviso to Section 6A of the EC Act to project that in lieu of confiscation of the trucks, the fine amount can't exceed the market price of the seized essential commodity i.e. LPG. Mr. S.S. Dey, the learned Counsel submits that Rs.4 lakhs which is total value of LPG Cylinders was erroneously quantified as fine. He refers to the 2nd Proviso to Section 6A of the EC Act to project that in lieu of confiscation of the trucks, the fine amount can't exceed the market price of the seized essential commodity i.e. LPG. Mr. Dey refers to the Dispatch Note(s) and the estimated value of the LPG given by the Indane Bottling Plant Authorities to show that Rs.97,488/- was recorded as the value of the loaded essential commodity (LPG) in 306 LPG Cylinders and accordingly the petitioners contend that the maximum fine which can be recovered from each truck owner, can't exceed Rs.97,488/- and the recoverable can never be the Rs.4 lakhs specified by the Collector, in the confiscation order dated 23.12.2011. 4. Mr. Dey refers to the Offence Report (Annexure-2) dated 7.6.2011 prepared by the Superintendent, Food Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs, Silchar to project that each of the trucks had carried the same quantity of LPG Cylinders from the Bottling Plant and accordingly he submits that the value of LPG carried by each of the violators can at best be Rs.97,488/- for each truckload of LPG in 306 cylinders. 5. Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate submits that truck owners have the option under Section 6A 2nd Proviso of the EC Act to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. However he agrees that the fine can't exceed the market value of the seized essential commodity. The learned Government Advocate accordingly submits that the payable fine has to be determined with reference to the actual value of the L.P. Gas as is indicated in the Dispatch Note(s) by the Indane Bottling Plant Authorities. 6. Having regard to the above submission and bearing in mind the 2nd Proviso to Section 6A of the EC Act, I am of the view that the amount of recoverable fine stipulated by the Collector in his order dated 23.12.2011 is beyond the permissible amount, prescribed under the EC Act. Accordingly the Collector, Cachar, Silchar is directed to re-determine the recoverable fine, bearing in mind the limits placed by the 2nd Proviso to Section 6A of the EC Act. 7. Accordingly the Collector, Cachar, Silchar is directed to re-determine the recoverable fine, bearing in mind the limits placed by the 2nd Proviso to Section 6A of the EC Act. 7. Consequently, while interfering with the impugned order to this limited extend, the respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh order in light of the above observation on the quantum of fine. During the reconsideration exercise, the officer may take into account the Dispatch Note(s) of the Indane Bottling Plant Authorities to decide on the fine amount to be recovered from the owners in lieu of confiscation of the trucks. 8. The petitioner will furnish a copy of this order along with the respective Dispatch Note(s) for a fresh consideration by the Collector, Silchar. The necessary exercise in this regard shall be carried out within 8 weeks thereafter. The Superintendent of the Food and Civil Supplies Department should be permitted to have his say when re-consideration is made on remand. It is ordered accordingly. The cases are disposed of without any order on cost.