^£'^g§'r^-'?^^ ^--fi^, AMENDED PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRITPETITION N0.2061/1995 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Suresh Sao, aged about 36 years, S/o Late Ramcharan Sao, Proprietor, Sanjay and Brothers, R/o Shastri chowk, Camp No.1, P.S.-chhawni, Bhilai Nagar, Distt- Durg, M.P. (Semi Whole-Sale Dealer of Kerosene-License No. 90/D/88) VERSUS : 1) State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P. 2) The Collector and Licensing Authority under the (M.P. kerosene Dealers Licensing Order) 1979, Durg, M.P. 3) Addl. Commissioner, Raipur Divn. Raipur. PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1AAND THE M.P. KEROSENE DEALERS LICENSING ORDER. 197S AND KEROSENE fRESTRICTION ON USE AND FIXATION OF CEILIN^ PRICE) ORDER, 1993. XI-HC-22 3T1^T^T 3^ ^NM^, ^Tfl^^Ko, Rl<rlW^< 3<1^1 ^5<<St> iTpTOnr^Tra?"""<"""""t7<^ 2^o- W^?T ?^cfT^K ^rf?cT Constitution of India, questi^ <=hi^I<n41'i ^i+i^T^tec^'<f^<^i< ^3Tf^R'3:n^?T 4-8-2005 Mr. Uttam Pandey, coun^el for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, P^nel Lawyer for the State/respondents, Heard bo1+i the counselj The petitioner, who wa^ a semi-wholesale dealer of kerosene oil, has preferred this writ p4tition under Articte 226/227 of the ^th dated 30Tn May, 1995, passe<| Division, Raipur, in Appeal No ning the legality and propriety of order by the Additional Commissioner; Raipur 85/C-149, 94-95 (Suresh Sao vs. State), the petitioner being time bar propriety of order dated 3-12| Authorit/ under the AA.P. K^ whereby the learned Additior^al Commissioner dismissed the appeai of 'ed, and also questioning the iegality and -1994 passed by the Collector <& Licensing rosene Dealers Licensing Orders, 1979, burg, whereby licence of the ^etitioner has been cancelled and security amount has also been ordered fro be forfeited. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner's firm Sanjay and ^ on 12-9-1988. The petitioner ^rothers was granted kerosene dealership ^as required to comply with the terms and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Ordj conditions of licence issued urjder the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and ^r, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order' 1993). The licence v^as 9ranted to the petitioner under the XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T RRT^W^T 3^'^Fn'oW, ^Tfl^^Ko, (^^ii<iy 3ll^l M5l<!h *<l*icrll $h*iich ^t^^^^^^^*y< ^q^ ^ftO— f^s W^T ^cTTW ;R^T '2- Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Dec^ referred to as 'the Order, 197^ chi^Id^l^ ^i^<nT^teT:^'<(^^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^?T lers Licensing Order, 1979 (hereindfter '). The Food Inspectors n|imety, B.S. Sharma & Tarachand Tiwari conducted search at the busi|iess premises of the pstitioner on 9-2- 1994 and theredfter, they fi|ed a complaint on 13-2-1994 regardin9 violation of Clause 3 (2) of "t Inspectors found that there v^ sa!e register, the registers Department, and the petitio| statements. On inspection, it[ kerosene oil was not mentione^ inspection, it was also found th| to the petitioner for sale thro| of 372 liters was not given November, 1993 to January, 1\ found. It is also found that pi| was 18,000 liters against whi^ November, 1993; 39,600 liter^ January, 1994, Thereafter,) written order, as against 18,0(] 1993; 47,700 liters in becem| 1994, thereby he sold the qij •he Order, 1993. On search, the Food ^as no pagination in the stock register & were not even certified by the Food fier herein had not sent the monthly was found that the source of obtaining ^ in themonthly statements. During the ^xt according to th©quota which was given ^gh hawkers the kerosene to the quantity \o the hawkers during the months from ^94. Some other irregularities were aiso ^escribed monthly quota of the petitioner ^h the petitioner lifted 37,600 titers in in December, 1993; and 35,400 liters in the petitioner without any authority/ |0 liters, sold 29,500 liters in November, Iser, 1993;and 27,300 titers in January, ^antity of 50,500 liters of kerosene oil ^.ft-^XO.^^ s) XI-HC-22 W^TSRT {^IWW^T §FTW^<T 3^ ^NId^, ^Ttl^^K?, Kdl^< aii^r M5Sct» HI^WII ^Rrai^.^^^(^ii[ ^..VT-...A..',.^~^ i^s 200 3;i1^T ^cITW ^rf?<T -3. illegaily. Thereafter, a show for explaining, reply of which licensing authority Le. the C<| expianation, and accordingly licence and atso forfeited thd ^[ wrcitffte^ <Ri<^s< ^;3lf^T^$T cau^ notice was issued to the petitioner was given by the petitioner. However, the tiiector, Durg, was not satisfied with the ^ide order dated 3-12-1994 cancelled the , w|ii securit/ dmount. Against this order/the petitioner moved an appeal, vy^ich was dismissed being barred by three days. In this petition, the pe^ one of the grounds that B.$. Sharma <& Tarachand Tiwari, the Food / Inspectors, were not authori^ed for search and seizure on 9-2-1994, as they were not empowered b 5overnment under Cbuse 9 <1 specificaliy raised in para 5.| reptied by the State/respond4nts. In the reply filed b^ mentioned that as per dec dealers are not entitled to Having heard learned o the facts and circumstances itioner abng with other grounds has raised i the State Sovernment and the Central if the Order, 1993. This point has been :> of the petition, but same has not been the State/respondents, the State has sion of the &overnment, semi-wholesale have licence after March, 1992, and the licence period of the petition^r has already expired/therefore, the writ petition has become infructuojus. ^unsel for the parties and having regard to |of the case, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents was not ^ble to argue or exptain before the Court XI-HC-22 3^ ^NIQI<I, ^Tfl^^Ko, Ri<nwy 3n^T1?r^F wwffgsnw^""""""""" ws, 200 i^g' w^rr^T f^WF^I^T SOTW^rf^T SftNB<t»<i SJ^- '^. ST^[^T Wcn^K W^T that B.S. Sharma & Tarachandl under Clause 9 of the Orderl envisages that Supplies of the ^ <^i^id4i<4 *iH<iT^te^i"<Ri<^i< ^3Tf^T^T1^T Tiwari were authorized to conduct ^arch 1993. Clouse 9 (a) of the Order, 1993 "An Officer of t^ie Department of Food and Civil overnment, not below the rank of an Inspector aut^iorized by such 9overnment and notified by the Cjentral Sovernment or any officer authorized an<| notified by the Centra! Sovemment, or o|ny Officer not below the rank of a Sales Gfficer of a Government Oil Company authorized by th^ &overnment and notified by the Central ^ovemm^nt may, with a view to ensuring compliance with ^he provisions of this Order, with such assistance a|s may be required for the purpose of satisfying him^elf that this Order or any Order made thereunderl (i) stop and s^arch other recxson to about to U Order; con^eyance fafeli (ii) enter or assistance, (iii) seize'and r as may be Therefore, B.S. Sharmij under 1+iis provision to condu has been complied with— any vesset or vehicle or any which the Officer has dieye, has been, or is being/or is >e used in contravention of this s^arch any place with such aid or bis may be necessary; and ^move with such aid or assistance, n^cessary/' and Tarachand Tiwari were not authorized ;t search and enter premises, as such, the XI-HC-22 3?n^TSFT ^raW^T $bH|cb^f?cT ^- ^ J 9o 6oi 3^ ^II^M^, ^Tfl^4Ko, f^crlWy 3ll^l^5(ch WTTCTTgiWW'^^^^^^'y' ^* <^00— 31^ST?^TW^f^T cbi^I<n41^ Hi^^T^te^iFst^K ^3^H3T1^T search was without any author|ty and same is contrary to the provisions of Cbuse 9 of the Order, 1^93. Hence, based on -t+iat search, the Collector was not entitled to tc|ke cognizance of that report and pass the impugned order. Therefore, n|erely on the ground that B.S- Sharma <& Tarachand Tiwari, without ar| conducted the search, the ord^ In the circumstances, th| by the Collector ahd the conse^ Learned counsel for th| pendency of this writ petition, of ticence, therefore, he may b^ atlowed to apply for licence. On the other hand, repl y authority entered the premises and r impugned is liabie to be set aside, ^ impugned order dated 3-12-1994 passed uent appellate order are set GSide. ^ petitioner argued that on account of |-h€petitioner had not apptied for renewal \f of the State/respondents is that after March, 1992, semi-wholesale c^aiers' licences are not being renewed as per the policy decision. Thereforejt is for the for grant of licence, and it is f|>r that authority to decide his application, in accordance with bw. With the above observa' petitioner to move appropriate authority ions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (<^y^)