THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1842 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Revision is directed against the order, dated 29.07.2010, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2006, wherein and whereby the order, dated 29.07.2009, passed by the District Collector, Warangal, confiscating the stocks seized on 20.05.2009 from the petitioner’s shop premises in favour of the Government, was confirmed. The brief facts are that on receipt of information that the petitioner was doing clandestine business, the Deputy Tahsildar, (Civil Supplies), Hanamkonda, Warangal District, surprised the shop of the petitioner on 20.05.2009 and found 875 bags of Vijaya Masuri superfine rice bags weighing 218.75 quintals. When the said Deputy Tahsildar directed the petitioner to produce licence, stock register and other relevant material, the petitioner could not produce the licence. As the petitioner was not having valid licence to carry on the business in food grains and the same is violative of Clause 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’), the entire stock was seized and the matter was reported to the District Collector for initiation of proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Pursuant to the said report, the District Collector, Warangal, initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and issued a show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Act, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner offered a detailed explanation stating that he applied for grant of a licence on 19.09.2008 by paying the necessary fee and complying with other requirements, but he did not receive any licence. As the said explanation was not satisfactory, the District Collector found him guilty of violating the provisions of the Control Order, and accordingly, ordered 90% of the value of the seized stock to be confiscated in favour of the Government. The same was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2009 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, who while concurring with the said findings of the District Collector, Warangal, reduced the said confiscation of the value of the seized stock from 90% to 30%. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this Revision. Heard both sides. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly contended that the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of a licence under the Control Order as early as on 19.09.2008, by paying the necessary challan fee of Rs.750/- and also enclosed NSC bonds worth Rs.1,500/- therewith, and if the competent authority to issue licence does not give licence, the petitioner cannot be faulted with. In this context, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Control Order. From the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner gave an application on 19.09.2008 requesting the District Supply Officer to issue him a licence as provided for under Clause 3 of the Control Order. He paid the necessary fee of Rs.750/- and also enclosed NSC bonds worth Rs.1,500/- therewith. But, however, the fact is that the petitioner was not having a valid licence at the time of inspection of his shop by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Hanamkonda. Clause 3 of the Control Order deals with issuance and renewal of licence. The first proviso to Clause 3 of the Control Order states that where an application for issue of fresh licence has been received by the Licensing authority and if the application is not rejected or returned for valid reasons within a month, the applicant can thereafter commence business and continue till such time his application for grant of licence is rejected. From the above proviso, it is clear that when the application is made and the said application is in compliance of the provisions of the Control Order and it is neither rejected nor returned, it shall be deemed that the licence has been issued and the persons like the petitioner can carry on the business in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order. Clause 4 of the Control Order which deals with licence fee, etc., states that for issuance of a retail licence, the required fee is Rs.750/-. From the order impugned in this Revision, it is clear that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.750/- towards licence fee and he had also enclosed NSC bonds worth Rs.1,500/- to it. As such, it is evident that the petitioner made an application for issuance of licence to the competent authority and he also complied with other requirements such as payment of licence fee, etc. When the petitioner had made an application for issuance of licence as early as on 19.09.2008 by complying with the other requirements and if he does not receive any licence, by virtue of first proviso to Clause 3 of the Control Order, it shall be deemed that the licence has been issued. As on 20.05.2009 i.e., on the date of the inspection of the shop premises of the petitioner by the said Deputy Tahsildar, may be, it is true that the petitioner was not in possession of a valid licence issued by the competent authority, but, from that, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not having any valid licence. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Court below ordering confiscation of 30% value of the seized stock is not correct. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order, dated 29.07.2009, passed by the District Collector, Warangal, in ECAC.No.49 of 2009 as well as the order, dated 29.07.2010, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2006 are hereby set aside, and the entire seized stock or its value which was ordered to be confiscated to the Government is hereby directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 19th October 2010 dr