Madras High Court
S.Dinesh Siva Sankar ... Revision vs The Taluk Supply Officer on 6 February, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P.(MD)No.2507 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.2507 of 2022
S.Dinesh Siva Sankar ... Revision Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
1.The Taluk Supply Officer,
Taluk Office,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Tuticorin District.
2.District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate Building,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.02.2015 in C.M.A.No.16 of
2014 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Court, Tuticorin, by confirming
the order of the respondent, dated 21.08.2014 in his proceeding No.Na.Ka.u.po.
1/20947/2014.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Senthil Sankara Natha Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.2507 of 2022
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed by the appellant in
C.M.A.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court,
Tuticorin.
2.A perusal of the records reveal that the revision petitioner herein is the
LPG dealer under the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
3.On 11.04.2014, at about 8 p.m., the first respondent in the revision
petition has seized 20 Nos. of LPG cylinders from the revision petitioner on the
ground that the domestic cylinders were being transported for commercial
purposes. The second respondent herein had passed an order on 21.08.2014
with a direction to hand over the said LPG cylinders to Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited. The petitioner was also cautioned that, in case of any
further violation, his license would be cancelled.
4.Challenging the above said order, the revision petitioner had filed an
appeal before the II Additional District Court, Tuticorin. The appellate authority
has passed an order confirming the order passed by the original authority.
Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner,
LPG cylinders were transported from the godown to the office and therefore,
there was no violation of any rules. Without any records, whatsoever, the first
respondent in the revision petition has seized the vehicle and the cylinders. The
order of the second respondent also does not reflect that these cylinders were
carried for commercial purposes. He further contended that the appellate
authority has not considered their submission while dismissing the appeal.
6.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents herein had contended that without any bills or invoices,
20 cylinders meant for domestic purposes, were transported by the revision
petitioner herein for commercial purposes. Those vehicles were intercepted and
the cylinders were seized by the authorities concerned. He further pointed out
that seized LPG cylinders have been handed over to the revision petitioner with
a direction to hand over those cylinders to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited. However, so far, no communication has been received from the
revision petitioner to the effect that he had complied with the order of the
second respondent.
7.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.A perusal of the order passed by the original authority reveals that he
has arrived at a finding that the cylinders meant for domestic use have been
transported for commercial purposes. However, he was neither imposed with
any punishment nor his license was cancelled. He was let off with a warning
that in case of any future violation, license would be cancelled. There was an
order to hand over the LPG cylinders directly to the Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited. However, from the submissions of the learned Special
Government Pleader, it could be seen that the cylinders were re-handed over to
the revision petitioner himself and it is not known whether he had returned the
same to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
9.A perusal of the order passed by the original authority as well as by the
appellate authority would clearly reveal that no action has been initiated by the
concerned authorities except seizing the LPG cylinders and those cylinders had
already been returned to the revision petitioner herein and therefore, this Court
does not find any legal grievance on the part of the revision petitioner herein to
maintain the present revision petition. However, the respondent authorities are
hereby directed to initiate appropriate stringent action, in case any violation
in future by the revision petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.With the above said observations, this revision petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
06.02.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
RJR
To
1.The 2nd Additional District Court, Tuticorin.
2.The Taluk Supply Officer,
Taluk Office,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Tuticorin District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate Building,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
