Gujarat High Court
Shree Raj Agency vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 727 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHREE RAJ AGENCY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JATIN YADAV on behalf of MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present revision application has been preferred by the applicant praying for the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to call for record and proceedings of Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1999 from the Court of learned Presiding Officer, 5th Fast Track Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal camp at Dhoraji;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside orders dated 29.11.1999 passed by District Collector, Rajkot (at ANNEXURE-B hereto) as well as 16.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:27:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined No.5, Gondal at Dhoraji in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1999 (at ANNEXURE-E hereto);
(C) During pendency and final disposal of the present application, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 29.11.1999 passed by District Collector, Rajkot (at ANNEXURE-B hereto) as well as 16.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Gondal at Dhoraji in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1999 (at ANNEXURE-E hereto);
(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant - Shree Raj Agency, challenging the order dated 29.11.1999 passed by the District Collector, Rajkot in exercise of powers under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 directing confiscation of 2769 litres of petrol and 15703 litres of diesel valued at Rs.2,52,565/-, and the order dated 16.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Gondal, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1999 filed by the applicant against the said order.
3. The facts in brief are that the applicant, a licence holder operating a petrol pump in the name of Shree Raj Agency, was subjected to inspection on 18.11.1998 by the District Civil Supply Officer. The inspection revealed certain irregularities relating to the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:27:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined price board, non-maintenance of stock register, short delivery at dispensing outlets and discrepancy in density of petroleum products. A show cause notice was issued on 01.05.1999 and the applicant submitted his reply on 01.06.1999. The Collector, upon considering the reply, held that the explanation was not satisfactory and proceeded to confiscate the aforesaid quantities of petrol and diesel by order dated 29.11.1999. The appeal preferred by the applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, came to be dismissed on 16.09.2008, leading to the present revision.
4. Mr.Jatin Yadav on behalf of Mr.P.P. Majmudar for the applicant has contended that the Collector as well as the appellate court committed serious error in appreciating the case of the applicant. It is submitted that the price board was updated till 17.11.1998 and any lapse was purely technical without mala fide intention; the stock register could not be updated owing to illness of the accountant, which was not a serious breach; the short delivery was due to defect in dispensing outlets controlled by the oil company and was immediately rectified, while no consumer had raised any complaint; and the variation in density was marginal, caused by temperature fluctuation, and the laboratory report confirmed that there was no adulteration. Reliance was placed on decisions such as M.D. Agency v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 1 GLH 768 and Kiran Oil Industries v. District Collector, AIR 1997 Guj 153 to contend that mere technical lapses cannot result in confiscation. It is further urged that both the orders are non-
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:27:45 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined speaking and suffer from non-application of mind, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
5. Per contra, the learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the inspection disclosed serious violations of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 and the Gujarat Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1980, justifying confiscation under Section 6A of the Act. It is submitted that the Collector passed a reasoned order after considering the applicant's reply and the appellate court has independently reappraised the material and confirmed the findings, and no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the irregularities noted during inspection were substantial. The price board was not maintained in accordance with Clause 21 of the 1981 Order and condition 4(1) of the licence, thereby creating scope for misleading consumers. The stock register was not updated beyond 11.11.1998, contrary to Clause 23 of the Order, and the explanation of the accountant's illness does not absolve the licence holder of his statutory obligation. The inspection further revealed short delivery of 200 ml per 5 litres of petrol and 300 ml per 5 litres of diesel, resulting in excess charges to consumers, and such lapses fall squarely under Clause 22 and condition 8 of Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:27:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined the licence. The density of petrol was found at 0.7548, exceeding the permissible tolerance limit under the 1980 Order, and coupled with the discovery of excess stock of petrol and diesel, a reasonable inference of manipulation was drawn. The Collector, therefore, was justified in exercising discretion to order confiscation.
7. The appellate court has, upon independent evaluation, rightly concluded that the applicant's explanations were unsustainable. The contention that there was no mala fide intention or that the lapses were merely technical cannot be accepted in the face of multiple proven violations of statutory orders which directly affect consumer interest and transparency in essential commodities distribution. The authorities below have considered the applicant's reply and recorded detailed reasons for rejecting the same. The judgments relied upon by the applicant are distinguishable on facts, as those pertained to isolated technical lapses, whereas the present case involves a combination of serious irregularities, and therefore, the said authorities cited by the applicant would not apply to the facts of the present case.
8. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code, interference is warranted only where the order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity. No such infirmity is demonstrated in the impugned orders. On the contrary, both the Collector and the appellate court have recorded findings on the basis of evidence and material Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:27:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined available on record. There is no violation of natural justice and no case of non-application of mind is made out.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere. The revision application, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The orders dated 29.11.1999 passed by the District Collector, Rajkot and 16.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, are confirmed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd/- .
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP/19
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:27:45 IST 2025