1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2009
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2009
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4362 OF 2009
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4360 OF 2009
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4358 OF 2009
ig AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4361 OF 2009
WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2009
M/s. J.D. Sons,
Main Road, Warora,
District - Chandrapur,
through its proprietor
Naresh s/o Dulichand Parakh,
r/o Main Road, Warora,
District - Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Additional Collector,
Chandrapur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Warora,
District - Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 :::
2
WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2009
Shikharchand Milapchand Sipani,
Aged 65 years,
occupation - Business,
r/o Warora, District - Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Additional Collector,
Chandrapur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Warora,
District - Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4362 OF 2009
M/s. Ashok Trading Company,
Ganjward, Chandrapur,
through its Proprietor Ashok
Kewalram Hariyani,
r/o Ram Nagar, Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Additional Collector,
Chandrapur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Warora,
District - Chandrapur.
3. The Tahsildar, Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 :::
3
WRIT PETITION NO. 4360 OF 2009
M/s. Shankar Kirana Stores,
Nehru Chowk, Warora,
District - Chandrapur,
through its Proprietor
Purushottam Laxman Amborkar ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Additional Collector,
Chandrapur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Warora,
District - Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4358 OF 2009
M/s. Padmawar Traders,
Shegaon, Tahsil - Warora,
District - Chandrapur,
through its Proprietor
Avinash Haribhau Padmawar ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Additional Collector,
Chandrapur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Warora,
District - Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 :::
4
WRIT PETITION NO. 4361 OF 2009
Shri Laxmandas Damumal Hariyani,
r/o Bank Colony, Warora,
District - Chandrapur, ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Additional Collector,
Chandrapur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Warora,
District - Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioners.
S/Shri N.S. Khubalkar and A.S. Fulzele, AGPs for the
respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : NOV. 23, 2009.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: DEC. 07, 2009.
JUDGMENT :
By these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the respective petitioners are challenging the orders of confiscation under Section 6A of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 5 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 1955 Act) passed by Respondent No.1. The raid in which the illegal hoarding of rice/ Gram was discovered has been conducted by Respondent No.2 - Tahsildar, Warora, on 29.08.2009. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 and 4362 of 2009 did not possess any licence according to the respondents while remaining four petitioners violated the terms and conditions thereof. The parties have treated Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009, in which rice is involved, as lead petition.
2. I have heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners and S/Shri Khubalkar and Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleaders respectively for the respondents.
3. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the action under above mentioned 1955 Act is not legally sustainable as rice is not controlled commodity at all.
He has invited attention to provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Whole-Sale Dealers' Licensing Order, 1998, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 6 (hereinafter referred to as 1998 Order), to urge that its clause (2)(x) define Schedule Commodity as one specified in schedule and licence under its clause (3) is required only for such commodity included in the schedule. He has invited attention to said schedule to show that it does not include rice at all. In this background he has also invited attention to guidelines dated 09.05.2008 issued by State Government which show that traders who have applied for licence may be permitted to trade if their applications are found containing some errors or lacunae. He contends that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 had applied for licence in accordance with law on 16.04.2008 and accordingly the licence was to be issued to him even for the period in dispute. He points out that he had a licence up to 21.12.2008 for other commodities. He had sought licence also to deal with rice mentioning therein that he would be doing business at his establishment located at main road, Warora, as also the godown of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation.
He further pointed out that after that application on 14.08.2009, the department inspected his establishment and examined his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 7 records, recorded his statement and submitted a report recommending grant of licence. He was asked to deposit licence fee and security deposit. He was also unwell from 16.08.2009 till 31.08.2009 and could not deposit licence fee or security deposit and in that period on 29.08.2009, rice 88 quintals in quantity belonging to him and stored in godown of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (State Godown) was seized.
According to him, in view of the guidelines mentioned above, such seizure could not have been effected.
4. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Prasad Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, reported at AIR 2007 SC 2626, to urge that as Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner before confiscation on 04.09.2009 did not point out relevant order or its violation, the order of confiscation is unsustainable. For the same purpose, he has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. V. Ranga Rao & Anr., reported at 2005 (12) SCC
274. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 8
5. To meet the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have got alternate remedy of filing appeal under Section 6C of 1955 Act, he points out that the appellate authority has been pointed out for the first time on 15.09.2009 as alleged but that appointment was never communicated to public till date. In any case, according to him, in view of the judgments mentioned above, the alternate remedy is no bar in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court. He has also invited attention to the fact that words "judicial authority" were added in Section 6C(1) by 1981 Amending Act and that amendment was in force for 15 years. After expiry of 15 years, positing prevailing prior to 1981 is automatically restored and hence appeal has to lie before State Government and appointment of judicial authority on 15.09.2009 is illegal. To point out this limited effect of Amending Act 1981, he has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pruthviraj vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2000 (1) Mh. L.J. 810. According to him, these grievances are common in all the matters.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 96. On the other hand the learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing in respective writ petitions have contended that Section 6C of 1955 Act, does not contemplate any publication or Gazette Notification of appointment of appellate authority and the communication issued by State Government to various concerned authorities on 15.09.2009 in this respect is sufficient compliance therewith. They have also pointed out that the word "judicial authority" in Section 6C(1) was there before 1981 and has been restored after expiry of amendment which was in force for 15 years.
7. They further contend that the petitioners did not take necessary steps to pursue their licence applications and the stipulation in guidelines permitting them to carry on business is only a stop gap arrangement which can continue for short time and not indefinitely. According to them, having applied for licence in 2008, it was incumbent on the petitioners to secure it within reasonable time and not to wait till August 2009 for it.
They place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 10 Court in the case of High Court of Gujarat vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, reported at 2003 (4) SCC 712, to urge that mere mention of wrong provision of law is not sufficient to vitiate the show cause notice or the action taken. They have invited attention to provisions of The Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002, (hereinafter referred to 2002 Order), to urge that the de-control or relaxation sought to be introduced by deleting rice from schedule of 1998 Order, was not implemented and was kept in abeyance. Attention is invited to communication dated 02.04.2009 issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department issuing 3rd Amendment Order, 2009 in respect of above mentioned 2002 Order which continued the effect of abeyance or postponement of amendment to schedule from 07.04.2009 till 20.09.2009. By Second Amendment Order 2008, the amendment to Schedule was kept in abeyance for a period of one year from 07.04.2008 till 06.04.2009. By 3rd Amendment Order 2009, it was kept in abeyance up to 30.09.2009 and by Removal of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 11 (Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs (6th Amendment) Order 2009, which came into force on 01.10.2009, said period has been extended up to 30.09.2010. This 6th Amendment has been issued on 25.09.2009. They point out that this initial order of 2002 with its subsequent amendments, therefore, postponed deletion of Commodities like rice and pulses from schedule and at the relevant time as these amendments were in force, rice and pulses were included and even today are included as scheduled commodity in Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Whole-Sale Dealers' Licensing Order, 1998.
8. They point out that show cause notice was given to the petitioners and thereafter opportunity of hearing was extended to them and impugned order came to be passed. Hence, this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners have got alternate and equally efficacious remedy of appeal before judicial authority and the petitioners should be asked to file those appeals.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 129. By referring to various orders mentioned above, Shri Mirza, learned counsel has tried to show that at the relevant time, rice was not included in schedule and in any case as amendment was not there, the deletion in schedule had come into force. In order to show how the provisions of 1955 Act need to be appreciated, he has invited attention to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of A.P., reported at AIR 1994 SC 2663, para 5.
10. Before proceeding to consider the arguments, it needs to be noted that the application for licence for rice in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 has been moved by the petitioner therein on 20.05.2008. Respondent No.2 - Tahsildar examined the godown of State Warehousing Corporation on 29.08.2009 and seized 88 quintals of rice belonging to the petitioner stored therein. Show cause notice was issued to him on 04.09.2009.
The petitioner submitted his reply on 09.09.2009 and the impugned order of confiscation has been passed on 22.09.2009.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 1311. In Writ Petition No. 4362 of 2009, the concerned commodity is Chana dal and 455.40 quintals thereof has been seized on 29.08.2009 from State Godown. The petitioner therein claims to have paid licence fee on 01.08.2009 and also claims to have informed storing in State Godown to Respondent No.3 on 04.05.2009. The impugned order is passed on 22.09.2009.
12. In Writ Petition No. 4358 of 2009, commodity is again Chana dal and 79.20 quintals thereof has been seized from State godown on 29.08.2009. The petitioner therein has not placed show cause notice on record but reply submitted by him shows that he stored chana dal in State godown for its safe keeping. He also pleaded that he was under the impression that the authorities at State godown would communicate the fact of storage to Respondents No. 1 & 2. The impugned order is dated 22.09.2009.
13. In Writ Petition No. 4359 of 2009, 526.89 quintals of chana dal of the petitioner was seized by Respondent No.1 on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 14 29.08.2009. He has not filed show cause notice but perusal of his reply dated 09.09.2009 shows same explanation as in Writ Petition No. 4358 of 2009. The impugned order in his case is 22.09.2009.
14. In Writ Petition No.4360 of 2009, the petitioner has not placed show cause notice received by him on record, however, he has stated that on 22.12.2008 he has informed Respondent No.2 about storage of chana dal in State godown at Warora. 50 quintals of his chana dal was seized on 22.08.2009.
The impugned order of confiscation in his matter is 22.09.2009.
15. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4361 of 2002 has again not placed on record the show cause notice, however, he claims that on 27.08.2009, he had informed Respondent No.2 that he was storing his chana dal at State godown. 100 quintals of his chana dal has been seized on 29.08.2009 and confiscated on 22.09.2009.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 1516. The contention of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 that rice is not a schedule commodity, appears to be misconceived. It appears that in original schedule, entry rice was appearing at Sr. No. (1)(iii). By notification dated 04.08.2003, said entry was to be deleted with effect from 17.03.2002. After its deletion, rice could not have continued a schedule commodity and hence licence under clause (iii) of 1998 Order could not have been required. However, it appears that ceiling on maximum stock of rice to be stored by licensed wholesale dealer in this 1998 Order has been introduced at 500 MT in Municipal Corporation areas and 300 MT in other areas vide notification dated 05.06.2008. It is thus apparent that said schedule and amendment thereto did not come into force and old schedule with rice included in it continues in force. The perusal of above mentioned 2002 Order, Second Amendment Order 2008, 3rd Amendment Order 2009 and 6th Amendment Order 2009 clearly show that rice was included in said schedule on 29.08.2009. From position as appearing today, it is clear that it will continue in that schedule till 30.09.2010. The challenge of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 16 said petitioners that rice is not schedule commodity has, therefore, to fail.
17. The provisions of Section 6C of 1955 Act permit aggrieved person to file appeal against the order of confiscation.
The order of confiscation is passed under Section 6C thereof.
The perusal of bare section shows that before 1981, appeal was provided before "any judicial authority appointed by State Government concerned". Because of Act No. 18 of 1981, these words were substituted by the words "State Government" for the period of 15 years. Thus, for a period of 15 years, appeal under Section 6C lay before State Government and after 1996, pre 1981 position has been revived and appeal, therefore, lies to judicial authority and not to State Government. The contention of Shri Mirza, learned counsel that communication dated 15.09.2008 issued by State Government appointing Court of Sessions as appellate authority is incorrect, therefore, cannot be accepted. The appointment of judicial officers presiding over the Court of Sessions in State of Maharashtra to be the judicial ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 17 authorities for the purpose of said Section 6C is perfectly legal.
18. However, it is noticed that there is no specific reply either on affidavit or even orally to the contention of Shri Mirza, learned counsel that said appointment has not been informed to general public. Because of this stand, matter was required to be adjourned and learned Assistant Government Pleaders have thereafter contended that Section 6C does not contemplate any public notification of such appointment. The document dated 15.09.2009 itself is captioned notification. Its copies are forwarded to the Registrar General of High Court, to all District Courts and Session Judges and to various other authorities/ officers including Manager of Government Central Press, Mumbai, with a request to publish the notification in Government Gazette. Section 6A of 1955 Act permits confiscation of food stuffs and, therefore, it is an order having serious civil consequences. Section 6C prescribes appeal against it and though said section does not expressly required State Government to inform to general public appointment of judicial ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 18 authority to function as appellate authority, it is apparent that until and unless the State Government notifies an appointment made by it to general public or to concerned trader, the argument of bar on account of alternate remedy at least cannot be accepted. A person whose rights are being infringed has been given a right of appeal by Parliament and forum therefor is to be prescribed by the State Government. The said forum can be prescribed only through some public proclamation like Gazette notification and in absence thereof, some order passed in concerned file by State Government privately, cannot oblige aggrieved person to file appeal before authority not known to him.
19. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleaders that provisions of law do not contemplated any such public notification is, therefore, erroneous. State Government itself has communicated this appointment and taken steps to see that it is published in Government Gazette. The date of publication in Government Gazette has not been brought on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 19 record by the respondents. The impugned orders in all these matters are dated 22.09.2009 and appeal there again was expected to be filed within one month from the date of its communication to the petitioners. Whether within said one month appointment was informed through publication in Government Gazette or not has also not been clarified by the respondents. The authority i.e. Respondent No.1 while passing impugned order could have included in that order a line communicating the petitioners the appellate authority to which they could have approached under Section 6C but such advice is also missing in the impugned orders. The argument of alternate remedy is, therefore, without any merit.
20. In Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 and 4362 of 2009, the petitioners have demonstrated that their establishments were inspected, their statements were recorded and they were expecting licence within short time. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 was informed about licence fee and security deposit on 14.08.2009 and department recommended his case for grant of licence on 14.08.2009. On 29.08.2009 his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 20 rice was seized. He has informed that as there was no action by respondents on his application from 21.05.2008 till 14.08.2009 and as he was unwell from 16.08.2009 till 31.08.2009, he could not pay licence fee or security deposit. He also supplied medical certificate in support of his plea of illness. During this period of illness on 29.08.2009, his rice was seized from godown of State Warehousing Corporation. The perusal of application submitted by said petitioner shows that in his application, he has disclosed that godown to Respondent No.2.
21. The petitioner - Ashok Trading Company in Writ Petition No. 4362 of 2009 had in fact deposited licence fee on 01.08.2009. They have not stated anything about security deposit and they claimed to have informed the Tahsildar at Chandrapur about their storage with State Warehousing Corporation. Said petitioner has not annexed his application for licence but it is apparent that he has separately intimated the place of storage on 04.05.2009 and hence it was not mentioned in his original application. In the impugned order, it has been ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 21 found that said petitioner should have deposited amount after getting the challan cleared through Warora office but he got it cleared through Chandrapur office which was really not concerned in the matter and hence it was illegal. The intimation of storage is also not given by him to Tahsildar at Warora (Respondent No.2) but it has been given to Tahsildar, Chandrapur, who really was not concerned in the matter.
22. The contentions of Shri Mirza, learned counsel that having applied for licence, in view of guidelines dated 09.05.2008, these petitioners could have continued their business even without licence, need to be appreciated in this back ground. The conduct of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4362 of 2009 shows that he approached an unconcerned office to get his challan cleared and also informed it about the place of storage. The conduct of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 shows that after applying for grant of licence on 21.05.2008, he has not taken any steps to procure the licence.
The guidelines issued on 09.05.2008 do not permit unlicensed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 22 trade or deal with rice or chana dal. The provisions of relevant order requiring licence cannot be waived and the guidelines do not supersede said requirement. The guidelines, therefore, may apply for reasonable time and hence reliance upon those guidelines by the petitioners in present circumstances is unjustified.
23. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. & Ors. vs. V. Ranga Rao & Anr., (supra), considers the case where violation of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act was not established. The contention of Shri Mirza, learned counsel is in all these cases the violation of Section 3 of 1955 Act has not been established. He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Kailash Prasad Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, (supra), for same purposes. This judgment shows that there the appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court were not the owners of schedule commodities but were owners of a truck which was hired for transporting such commodity and an order of its confiscation was passed. In this back ground in para 5, it has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 23 been observed that confiscation of goods and vehicle amounted to deprivation of property and such confiscation was possible only if the provisions of any order made under Section 3 of 1955 Act was established. In para 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that the authorities, therefore, must arrive at a clear finding in regard to violation made under Section 3 of said Act.
24. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of A.P., (supra), particularly para 5 briefly outlines the objectives of the Act. It highlights that those who are responsible to implement the provisions of 1955 Act must act with reasonableness, fairness and to promote the purpose and object of the Act. The confiscation can be ordered only if the Collector is satisfied about violation of Control Orders.
Every contravention cannot entail confiscation and hence the section uses the word "may". The Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that a technical violation such as failure to put up price list or discrepancies in stock cannot be treated at par with a trader indulging in black marketing or selling adulterated goods.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 2425. These observations are important because in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009, Respondent No.1 has concluded that by hoarding 88 quintals of rice, Section 3 of 1955 Act was violated. He has not mentioned the order which was violated. It is not the finding that stock exceeded permissible limit but because of absence of licence only the inference has been drawn.
The perusal of show cause notice dated 04.09.2009 reveals that said show cause notice was issued by Respondent No.1 alleging violation of Maharashtra Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Order (Amendment) Order, 2009. In fact, no such order has been pointed out before me. The relevant orders of 2009 are 3rd Amendment Order 2009 (supra) and 10th Amendment Order, 2009. Thus, show cause notice itself has been issued alleging violation of some non existent order. The petitioners have given reply to it and impugned order only mentions non possession of a licence as ground for violation of Section 3 of 1955 Act. In relation to petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4362 of 2009 i.e. M/s.
Ashok Trading Company, obtaining of challan from unconcerned office and illegality has also been pointed out. The question ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 25 whether their applications for renewal were processed within time, who was responsible for delay, whether they were to be issued licence shortly and what is effect of guideline dated 09.05.2008 on those facts are not looked into by Respondent No. 1 at all. I, therefore, find substance in contention of Shri Mirza, learned counsel that impugned orders show non application of mind and hence are unsustainable.
26. The Assistant Government Pleaders have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Gujarat vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, (supra), to urge that non mentioning or wrong mentioning of a statutory provision by Respondent No.1 would not vitiate his order so long as there is source therefor under a General law or Statute law. It is to be noted that these observations are made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a service matter where the question was whether an officer to be eligible to become President of Industrial Court should be first a member of Industrial Court. Thus, it was not a case dealing with issue of confiscation or seizure of property.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 26The said observations, therefore, are not relevant here in view of two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court directly on the point considered above.
27. It is obvious that in show cause notice some wrong order has been mentioned as order issued under Section 3 of 1955 Act. In present circumstances, that error by itself cannot result in direction to respondents to release the confiscated rice or confiscated chana dal in favour of these petitioners. Hence, though the order of confiscation dated 22.09.2009 in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 and 4362 of 2009 is found to be unsustainable, liberty is given to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice to those petitioners within two weeks from today and after obtaining their reply, to pass fresh orders within a further period of two weeks of receipt of said reply. Subject to this, show cause notice dated 04.09.2009 in both these writ petitions and orders of confiscation dated 22.09.2009 are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 to issue fresh show cause notice within two weeks to both the petitioners, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 27 petitioners to submit their reply to it within a further period of one week thereafter and Respondent No.1 shall pass suitable orders after considering said reply in the matter within a further period of two weeks thereafter. It is clarified that observations made by this Court above are only for the purposes of deciding the controversy raised before it and shall not prejudice or influence Respondent No.1 in this exercise. The said respondent No.1 is free to apply his own mind to the reply received and to the requirements of law and shall pass final orders within the time stipulated above. Writ Petitions No. 4259 of 2009 and 4362 of 2009 are thus partly allowed.
28. The petitioners in other writ petitions have got licence already issued in their names. The licence issued to them carries a condition that they cannot store schedule commodities except at the place disclosed in the licence. If they want to change such place, they have to communicate such changed place within 48 hours of taking its possession and should surrender their licence to licensing authority for its modification. These petitioners have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:08 ::: 28 not produced show cause notices served upon them along with writ petitions. They have tried to contend that to protect the chana dal from rains or termites, they stored it in godown of State Warehousing Corporation and did not communicate changed placed because of their wrong understanding.
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4360 of 2009 has stated that he had already communicated to Competent authority that he would be storing his schedule commodity in godown of State Warehousing Corporation but then this communication mentions that such storage would be as per his need. It, therefore, does not satisfy the requirement of clause 2B of licence. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4361 of 2009 has stated that some times he is storing his schedule commodity in godown of State Warehousing Corporation. Again this communication does not meet the requirements of clause 2B of his licence. This stand of the petitioner and reply filed by them clearly show that they were aware of the nature of action initiated against them and impugned orders dated 22.09.2009 clearly show that the order of confiscation is because of violation of this condition of licence ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:09 ::: 29 which ultimately is violation of Section 3 of 1955 Act. With the result, no case is made out warranting any interference in these four writ petitions.
29. Thus Writ Petitions No. 4358 of 2009, 4359 of 2009, 4360 of 2009 and 4361 of 2009 are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition Nos. 4359 of 2009 and 4362 of 2009 are partly allowed as mentioned above with no order as to costs.
JUDGE ******* *GS.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:09 :::