Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2226 (RAJ)

Arvind Swami v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this revision, the petitioners herein have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Appeal No. 14/2016 affirming the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar in Case No. 62/2015 whereby, the application preferred by the District Supplies Department under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was accepted and the seized pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-13-GB-1906, 2200 litres. diesel and 11 plastic drums were directed to be confiscated. Simultaneously, a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed in lieu of returning the vehicle to its registered owner i.e. the petitioner Rajendra Kumar. 2. Facts in brief are that the aforesaid pick-up vehicle was stopped by the officers of the DSO, Sri Ganganagar on 08.07.2015 on the Suratgarh National Highway No. 15. The petitioner Arvind Swami was driving the vehicle. Upon inquiry, he informed that he was engaged as a driver on the vehicle by Rajendra Kumar, the registered owner thereof. Arvind Kumar further disclosed that he was carrying diesel purchased from a petrol pump at Punjab for selling the same to the farmers of Rajiyasar. On inspection, 11 drums each containing 200 litres. of diesel were found stored in the vehicle. The driver could not provide any proof for valid possession of the diesel at the time of inspection. Accordingly, the vehicle as well as the drums containing diesel were seized. The Supplies Department moved an application under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act before the District Collector Sri Ganganagar seeking confiscation of the vehicle and the diesel drums. The petitioners, upon receiving notice of these proceedings, put in appearance and filed reply thereto. Rajendra Singh asserted in his reply that he owns 25 bighas of agricultural land in village Thukrana and was a farmer. He was the registered owner of the vehicle in question which was being used for his personal purposes. Arvind Swami was engaged as a driver on the seized vehicle. It was further mentioned that Prithviraj, Mahesh Kumar and other farmers of Suratgarh were on friendly terms with Rajendra Kumar. They requested Rajendra Kumar to procure diesel from Punjab for their personal farming operations. On this, Rajendra Singh sent Arvind Swami in his pick-up vehicle for purchasing diesel from Shergarh (Punjab). The diesel was purchased in the proportions of 800 litres. They requested Rajendra Kumar to procure diesel from Punjab for their personal farming operations. On this, Rajendra Singh sent Arvind Swami in his pick-up vehicle for purchasing diesel from Shergarh (Punjab). The diesel was purchased in the proportions of 800 litres. for Rajendra himself, 850 litres for Prithviraj and 550 litres. for Mahesh Kumar. While the diesel was in the process of being transported to the respective purchasers, the DSO and his team seized the same. It was also mentioned in the application that individual bills of purchase were presented to the inspection team at the time of seizure and they were apprised that the diesel was not meant for sale in the market but the same were ignored. It is relevant to mention here that the reply was also supported by the affidavits of Rajendra Kumar, Prithviraj and Mahesh Kumar. The District Collector however, repelled the plea taken by the petitioners claiming release of the diesel as well as the vehicle and while accepting the application filed under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, directed confiscation of the seized drums, diesel as well as the vehicle as mentioned above. The petitioners challenged the order of confiscation dated 12.12.2015 passed by the District Collector by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court which was rejected vide order dated 21.06.2016. Hence, the instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners for challenging both these orders. 3. Shri Hemant Dutt learned counsel representing the petitioners relied upon the Petroleum Products (Maintenance of Production, Storage and Supply) Order, 1999 and urged that as per definition clause No. 2(i) of the said Order, Petroleum products upto 2500 litres. can be sold at a time to one customer. He thus urged that there was no legal impediment against purchase of diesel from Punjab which was procured by Rajendra for himself and his known farmers in a bona fide manner through his driver Arvind and was being lawfully transported in the pick up vehicle. He contended that the bills of purchase were provided to the seizure officer at the time of the inspection but the same were ignored and were not taken on record intentionally. He contended that the bills of purchase were provided to the seizure officer at the time of the inspection but the same were ignored and were not taken on record intentionally. Shri Dutt placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bijaya Kumar Agarwala vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1996 SC 2531 and this Court's judgment in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1361/2014, Karamjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 02.02.2016 and, urged that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on two grounds (i) that the diesel was seized in the process of transportation and as such, the provisions of the State Government notification dated 11.04.2005 imposing a restriction/cap on storage of diesel exceeding 1000 litres. would have no application and (ii) that the Central Government notifications which were considered and appreciated by this Court while deciding Karamjeet's case, have an overriding effect and thus the State Government's notification could not have been applied to the detriment of the petitioners' valid claim for the seized goods and vehicle. He thus contended that the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the officers of the District Supply Department, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He contended that the Central Government's notification applies to retail sale of petroleum products by a licensed dealer whereas the State Government's notifications deal with storage of petroleum products by a private person. Thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the Central Government's notification has no applicability to the facts of the case at hand. On these grounds, he craves rejection of the revision. 5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record and the impugned order. It is the firm opinion of this court that the controversy at hand is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the aforesaid bunch of revisions led by S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1361/2014, Karamjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan wherein, after considering the import of the control orders issued by the State Government as well as the Central Government, it was held that the restriction on possession of maximum of 1000 litres. diesel as stipulated in the State Government notification could not be accepted as having an overriding effect on the Central Government Rules/Notifications. 6. That apart, the case as set up by the officers of the Supply Department is that the diesel was seized while the same was in transit. The notification dated 11.04.2005, which was relied upon by the courts below, puts a cap of 1000 litres. on possession/storage of diesel by a person other than the State Government or a licenced dealer. Undeniably, process of transportation is totally different from storage. Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered a similar controversy in the case of Bijaya Kumar Agarwala (supra) and held that if the goods are kept or stored in a ware house, it can be described as an act of storage. A vehicle can also be used as a warehouse, however, carrying goods in a vehicle cannot per se amount to storing. The Supreme Court went on to hold that the trucks in transit carrying paddy in excess of the quantity permitted to be stored could not be considered to be used in contravention of the provisions of the control order. Same is the situation in the case at hand. Admittedly, the diesel was seized while the same was in process of transportation. As such, the State Government's control order would not have any application whatsoever and rather the Central Government control order will prevail. The said Control Order clearly permits sale of upto 2500 litres of diesel to an individual in a single transaction. Admittedly, the diesel being carried in the pick-up vehicle was within the said limit. 7. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Collector, Sri Ganganagar directing confiscation of the seized 2200 litres. Diesel, 11 plastic drums and the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-13-GB-1906 as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in appeal are bad in the eye of law and cannot be sustained. 8. Resultantly, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Appeal No. 14/2016 and the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by the District Collector in Case No. 62/2015 are set aside. 8. Resultantly, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Appeal No. 14/2016 and the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by the District Collector in Case No. 62/2015 are set aside. The learned District Collector, Sri Ganganagar is directed to forthwith return the seized vehicle No. RJ-13-GB-1906 to its registered owner Rajendra Kumar and so also the seized diesel measuring 2200 litres stored in the 11 drums in question to the respective purchasers who filed affidavits before the District Collector in support of the reply to the application filed by the DSO under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. In case, the diesel has been sold, the sale price thereof shall be paid to the concerned claimant. 9. The revision is allowed in the above terms.