SCA/5411/1999 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5411 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ========================================================= JAYANTILAL G PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DIPEN DESAI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 23/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 17.06.1999 in dismissing the appeal preferred by SCA/5411/1999 2/7 JUDGMENT the petitioner and confirming the order dated 25.07.1997 passed by respondent No.2 – Collector in confiscating 11,000 Kg. gas worth Rs.1,45,000/- seized, for which the Collector, Sabarkantha issued notice under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on 01.04.1997. 2. It appears that the petitioner is running his business in the name and style of 'Neon Fuel Manufacturing Co.' and proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act more particularly section 6(b) of the Act came to be initiated by the Collector, Sabarkantha for the incident / inspection carried out by the competent authority on 19.12.1996. It appears that one tanker No.HR-18-5165 and some Gas Cylinders came to be seized from the premises / compound of the factory of 'Neon Fuel Manufacturing Co.' of which the petitioner is the Managing Director. A show cause notice came to be issued upon one Maheshbhai Shankerbhai Patel, Pragatsinh Karmsingh and Omprakash Sharma inter-alia alleging that said Maheshbhai Shankerbhai Patel is Administrator / Manager of 'Neon Fuel Manufacturing Co.' and aforesaid Pragatsinh was Driver and Omprakash Sharma was transport operator. Show cause notice came to be issued upon the aforesaid three persons only on 01.04.1997 under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act calling upon them to show cause why gas cylinders and gas seized and the tanker should not be confiscated. 3. It appears that said Maheshbhai Shankarbhai SCA/5411/1999 3/7 JUDGMENT Patel denied having any relation with 'Neon Fuel Manufacturing Co.' and that the Collector, Sabarkantha by impugned order dated 25.07.1997 passed an order to confiscate 30% of the value of the tanker i.e. Rs.2,55,000/- to be recovered from the owner of the tanker and further passed an order to confiscate 11,000 Kg. of gas amounting to Rs.1,45,000/- to be recovered from the owner of 'Neon Fuel Manufacturing Co.' i.e. Jayantibhai Patel. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.07.1997 passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies contending inter-alia that the impugned order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha is in breach of principles of the natural justice; no notice has been served upon the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be saddled with liability to pay aforesaid amount of Rs.1,45,000/-. That the petitioner has no connection with the tanker in question and/or said transaction as the petitioner had never booked cylinders found in the gas tanker. The impugned order dated 17.06.1999 passed by respondent No.1 – Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supply in dismissing the said appeal is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned Advocate appearing SCA/5411/1999 4/7 JUDGMENT on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned orders saddling the liability upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- inlieu of seized quantity of 11,000 Kg. of gas is absolutely perverse and against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted by him that before impugned order dated 25.07.1997, no notice has been served upon the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It is submitted that even Maheshbhai Patel who was alleged to be Manager/ Administrator of the Company has specifically on the very day of seizure has made submission that he has nothing to do with 'Neon Fuel Manufacturing Co.' and he is not employed and/or Manager of the said Company. It is also further submitted that said goods / cylinders found from the tanker had reached to the real purchaser and as such even the order of confiscation itself is bad in law and against the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. Mr.Dipen Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader while supporting the impugned orders has submitted that opportunity was given to one Maheshbhai Patel who was Administrator / Manager of 'Neon Fuel Manufacturing Co.' and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha was in breach of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on merits both the authorities have found against the petitioner and SCA/5411/1999 5/7 JUDGMENT therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 7. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 8. At the outset it is required to be noted that on considering show cause notice issued by the Collector, Sabarkantha under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act dated 01.04.1997 it appears that the said notice has been served upon Maheshbhai Shankarbhai Patel, Pragatsingh Karmsing and Omprakash Sharma and no notice has been issued and served upon the petitioner. It is the contention on behalf of the respondent that as Maheshbhai Patel was responsible person of the Company i.e. Administrator / Manager and who was found at the time of inspection / checking and as he was heard and notice was served upon him, it is in compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is required to be noted that from the very day one said Maheshbhai has disputed that he has no connection and/or is employed and/or Manager of the Company. It is admitted position that no notice under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act has been issued and/or served upon the petitioner. Under the circumstances, in absence of any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, no order could have been passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha saddling petitioner liability to pay Rs.1,45,000/-, therefore, impugned order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha is in breach of principles of natural SCA/5411/1999 6/7 JUDGMENT justice and even against the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. Revisional Authority has also committed error in confirming the said order. Under the circumstances, without further entering into merits of the case and/or expressing anything on merits, impugned orders require to be quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector, Sabarkantha for passing an appropriate order after giving opportunity to the petitioner, if so advised. 9. For the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 25.07.1997 passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha as well as order dated 17.06.1999 passed by the Revisional Authority are hereby quashed and set aside as the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha is in breach of principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded to the Collector, Sabarkantha for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits after giving opportunity to the petitioner and it is observed that this Court has not expressed any opinion in favour of either parties. It appears that by interim order dated 12.07.2000 recovery pursuant to the impugned orders were stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit sum of Rs.1 (one) lac and shall also give security for the balance amount. Under the circumstances the parties are directed to maintain status quo till any fresh proceedings are initiated by the Collector, Sabarkantha and fresh order is passed meaning thereby SCA/5411/1999 7/7 JUDGMENT on quashing and setting aside the impugned order, the respondents are not required to refund / return the amount already deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 12.07.2000 passed by this Court in the present petition. Further the Collector, Sabarkantha is directed to conclude the proceedings on remand within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. [M.R.Shah,J.] satish