A.F^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRtTPETITION N0,1187 OF 2005 PETmONERS li •,'•• l RESPONDENTS <&.- 1. Salim Thobhani, aged about % years, S/o Shri Shahabuddin Thobhani, Partner, M/s Thobhani Automobiles, • Manendragarh, R/o A/2 Farishta < Apartments, Byron Bazar, Raipur, District . Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Manohar Lal Purohit, aged about 73 years, S/o Shri K.L.Purohit, Manager, M/s Thobhani Automobiies, ft4anendragarh, R/p Ward No.1, Civi) Lines, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) 3. Sanjeev KumarPurohit, aged about 25 years, S/o Shri M.L. Purohit, Assistant Manager, M/s Thobhani Automobiles, Manendragarh, R/o Ward No.1, Civii Lines, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) 4. S.N.Jha, aged about 63 yeare, S/oShri Jha, Owner, M/s Balaji Road Carriers, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) yersys 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Suppffes & Consumer ProtecBon, D.K.S. Building, Manfralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector (Food), District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 3. Food inspector, Manendragarh, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) Mi] 1 i. ,i Present : Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, leamed Senior Advocate with Mr. V.R.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Government Advocate for tfie respondents/State. ORALORDER (Passed on 21SI March, 2006) This writ petition arises out of the proceedings initiated by the CollecSor (Food), District Koriya, the second respondent herein under the Chhattisgarh Kerosene Deaiers Licensing Order, 1979 (for short 'Licensing Order') confiscating the tanker bearing registration No.CG- 10A/4723 and 12 Kiloliters of kerosene found therein. > (2) The facts of the dase in brief are as follows : The Food inspector, Manendragarh submitted an enquiry report to the Coiiector, Koriya on 6-4-2004 after enquiring with the shop of M/s Thobhani Automobiles, Kerosene Wholesale Dealer, High School Road, Manendragarh on 23-8-2004. In the said report, it is stated ttat on 25-3- 2004, the Depot Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Company, Bilaspur, issued 12-12 Kiloliters kerossne in two tankers, one bearing registration No.CG-IOZB/1013 for Koriya District and the other bearing registration No.CG-IOA/4723 for Surguja District. Both those tankers, fuliy loaded, were found standing before the Firm Thobhani Automobiles, Manendragarh. Tanker No.CG-IOA/4723, though belonged toSurguja District, was found in Koriya District. In the cireumstence, the tanker No.CG-IOA/4723 with 12 Kiloliters kerosene contained thersin was seized on 28-3-2005 and the same was sent to the Police Station, Manendragarh on 30-3-2004 for its custody. The offlce of the District Collector, Food Branch, Koriya, in view of the letter dated 31-3-2004, written by the Depot Wanager, Hindustan Petroieum Company, Bilaspur, calied for tankerwise and datewlse information from the petitioners regarding kerosene sent for Surguja and Koriya Districts til! March, 2004. As per the information furnished by the Depot Manager of the petitioner - Firm, on 25-3-2004,12 -3 - 12 Kiloliters kerosene was issued in the tanker No.CG-IOZB/1013 for Koriya District and the tanker No.CG-IOA/4723 for Surguja District. On the basis of the report of the Food Inspector and the information supplied by Manager of the petitioner - Firm, the second respondent issued show cause notice on 27-4-2004 to the petitioners under Ssction 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 calling upon them to show cause as to why the tanker and the kerose.ne found therein should not be confiscated ft>r vioiation of the controt ordec on or before 5-5-2004. The owner of vehicle No.CG-IOA/4723, namely, M/s Balaji Road Carriers, Tarbahar, Bilaspur was also issued show cause notice for viotation of the provisions of the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 (for short 'the Kerosene Control Order'). Petitioner No.1, namely, Saiim Thobhani, petitioner No.2, Manohar Lal Purohit and petitioner No.4, S.N.Jha, owner of the vehicle submitted their written replies on 12-5-2004. Petitioner No.3, Sanjeev Kumar Purohit, however, did not submit repty to the show cause nofce. (3) in the replies submitted by petitioners No.1 and 2 to the show cause notice, it is stated that on 25-3-2004, vshicte No.CG- 10A/4271 and vehicle No.CG-1 OA/4723 were filled-in with kerosene and were directed to be emptied at Surguja and Koriya. It is ateo stated that there is a proof to show that the tanker meant for Koriya, which was wrongly sent to Surguja, delivered the goods at Fair Price Shops in Surguja. (4) The second respondent - Cotlector (Food), however, without refemng to the specific plea of the petitioners No.1 and 2, as set out in ^- y> their replies to theshow cause notice, but finding technicai viotation on the part of the petitioners in sendirg the tanker meant for Surguja to Koriya, passed the order confiscating the tanker bearing registration No.CG- 10A/4723 and the kerosene contained therein and also forfeiting the security deposit furnished by the petitioners which was lying with the department, by his order dated 28-5-2004. By the same order, the dealership licence granted in.the name of the petitioner No.1 was also cancelled. (5) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the above order of the second respondent, preferred appea! No.F6.15/Khadya/04/29 to the State Govemment. The Government also summarily dismissed the appea! without considering the specific plea and explanation offered by the petitioners No.1 and 2 in their replies to the show cause notice issued by the Cotlector (Food), District Koriya. Hence, this writ petition by the aggrieved persons. (6) I have heard iearned counsei for the parties. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, wouid submit fchat the impugned orders passed by the Collector (Food) and the Govemment could not be sustained in law, if not for any reason, but, for the reason that both the authorities have completely failed to refer to muchless consider the version/explanation of the petitioners No.1, 2 and 4, as set out in their replies to the show cause notice issued by the Caliector (Food). Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, leamed Senior Advocate for the petitioners, would highlight that there was absoiutely no justifieation to resort to the drastic action of confiscation of the tanker and the goods found therein for a technical violation, particulariy, when there is absolutely -y- no evidence to show that the petitioners diverted the goods in favour of someone for whom the goods was not intended, and on e other hand, according to Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, the materials placed before the authorities would show that the Sanker meant for Koriya District, though diverted to go to Surguja District, the goods were promptly delivered to the ^ fair price shops in Surguja. According to the learned Senior Advocate, iooking from any angle, public jjjstice did not suffer on account of diversion of the tankers and the goods trahsported in both the tankers have reached the intended beneficiaries. (7) There is no need for me to pronounce upon the abovs version of the petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 and it is for the stetutory authorities to appreciate the same. Suffice it to state that the Collector (Food) and the State Government are not justified in ignoring the above version of the petitioners No.1, 2 and 4, as set out in their replies to the show cause notice. 1 say this because, if that version, after necessary enquiry and verification, is found to be correct, it is trite, the violation on the part of the petitioners would be purely a technical violation and such violation would not entail the extreme drastic action of confiscation of the vehicle and the goods contained therein and forfeiting the security deposit. On the other hand, the version of the petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 in their replies, is not substantiated, it is for the statutory authorities to consider all other relevant and attendant facts and cireumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders. 1 am of the considered opinion that both the Collector (Food) and the State Government did not deal with the matter in the way expected ofthem. Therefore, 1 thinkthatthe ends ofjustice would be met by directing the Collector (Food), District Koriya to dispose of the proceedings cfe novo after taking into consideration all the facte and circumstances of the case, the documents produced by the petitioners and other material resting with them and after conducting further enquiry, if need be. (8) - In the result and for ttie foregoing reasons, 1 allow the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Collector (Food), District Koriya dated 28-5-20)4 as weir.as the State Government dated 4-2-2005 and remand the proceedings to the Collector (Food), the second respondent herein with a direction to dispose of the proceedings cte novo after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case and after taking into account all the facts and cireumstances of the case and the documents filed by the petitioners and in the light of this order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs in this writ petition. _ __ — Sd/- Chief Justice Cicpa!