Bombay High Court
M/S. J.D. Sons vs The Additional Collector on 7 December, 2009
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari
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
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,
(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
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.
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.
6. 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
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
(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.
9. 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.
11. 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
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.
16. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
25. 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
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.
The 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
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
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
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.
