THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.20068 OF 2008 BETWEEN: M/s. K.L.Sudershan & Co., H.P.C. Dealer, Yellareddy, Nizamabad District, Rep. by its proprietor M. Veereshalingam, S/o. Late Pentaiah. …. PETITIONER And 1. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District and another. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent, viz., the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, made in Case No.CS-1/944/08 dated 12.09.2008, whereby the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent, viz., Tahsildar, Yellareddy Mandal, to dispose of certain quantities of Petrol and Diesel in the purported exercise of the powers under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the E.C. Act’). The brief facts are that on 11.09.2008, the Tahsildar, Yellareddy Mandal inspected the Petrol Bunk, viz., M/s.K.L. Sudershan & Co., run by the petitioner, and found certain variations in the stock. Under a panchanama dated 11.09.2008 the stock was allegedly seized, by sealing the Petrol Bunk. On a report submitted, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2008 stating that the petitioner could not explain the reasons to the inspecting staff for the alleged variations and therefore the Bunk was sealed under a cover of panchanama for contravention of Clause 28 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licencing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the Control Order’) and Condition No.11 of the Licence. Since the 1st respondent has directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the seized stock, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Heard Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inspecting staff did not effect any seizure, and in the absence of seizure the provisions of Section 6-A of the E.C. Act cannot be invoked nor proceedings under E.C. Act be continued. The learned counsel relies upon a copy of the panchanama, which is said to have been served on the delivery boy, who was present at the time of inspection. In the said panchanama, there was no recital that the petrol bunk has been sealed or the stock has been seized. He contends that later the petitioner has applied for a copy of the said panchanama and in the certified copy of the said panchanama furnished to him an entry was made to the effect that the petrol bunk was sealed. According to the learned counsel this was a subsequent interpolation in the certified copy of panchanama furnished to him. The learned counsel also contends that even a perusal of the said certified coy of panchanama would show that the same has not been signed by all the panchas in whose presence the seizure was allegedly effected, and the said panchanama does not satisfy the requirements of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Therefore, the said panchanama cannot form basis for any action against the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that the petrol bunk was inspected and as the inspecting staff found certain variations, the Tahsildar sealed the petrol bunk thereby effecting seizure of stock available in the petrol bunk under a cover of panchanama. He further contends that the impugned order was rightly passed and the same does not warrant interference. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the copies of both the panchanamas. The petitioner is alleged to have violated the provisions of Clause 28 of the Control Order and Condition No.11 of the licence to run the Petrol Bunk. There cannot be any dispute that the authorities enumerated in clause 32 (1) of the Control Order are competent to inspect, search, seize or seal, and to discharge the functions enumerated therein, in order to ensure compliance of the said Control Order. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 32 of the Control Order provides that while carrying on search and seizure and discharging other functions enumerated in sub-clause (1), the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C., relating to search and seizure shall, as the case may be, applied to searches and seizures under the said Clause. Section 100 Cr.P.C., contains the procedure, which inter alia prescribes that before making a search the concerned officer should call upon two or more independent witnesses; that the search should be made in their presence and that a list of all things in the course of said search shall be prepared by the said officer and signed by the said witnesses. The proceedings contemplated under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act are quasi judicial and quasi-criminal in nature and the provisions thereof should be strictly construed as the orders contemplated therein, may lead to confiscation of the properties. Therefore, the inspecting staff or the other staff, who effects seizure should strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 100 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, as noted earlier there are two types of copies of the panchanama dated 11.09.2008 – one is alleged to have been served on the delivery boy at the time of inspection and the other, a certified copy of the said panchanama. The first one does not state that the petrol bunk was sealed. The certified copy of the panchanama, however, contains the said fact. The said variance between the two copies of panchanama may not be material, if the legal effect of the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C., is taken into consideration. The certified copy of the panchanama shows that three panchas, viz., Chintala Mohan, S/o. Radhakrishnaiah; Gurrapu Kistaiah, S/o. Sayanna and Irupadi Mogala Goud, S/o. Raja Goud, were called as panch witnesses. The said panchanama, however has not been signed by all the panchas. It contains the signature of only one panch witness, viz., Chintala Mohan. The petitioner has specifically taken a stand in his affidavit that all the witnesses did not sign the panchnama and the same is not valid under law. The respondents have not explained in their counter affidavit as to why the other panch witnesses did not sign the panchanama. The absence of the signatures of all the panch witnesses would lend credence to the allegation that the panchanama was not true and correct. As evident from the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C., there should be at least two independent witnesses for any search and seizure. Having regard to this factual situation and the provisions of law, I am of the view that the panchanama could not have been the basis for passing the impugned order. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent herein in case No.Cs- I/944/08, dated 12.09.2008 is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 10th November, 2010 Js.