AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Chennakesav Reddi, C.J.—The Petitioner is a licensee under the Assam Trade, Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Order, The Petitioner has been carrying on business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of the several trade articles mentioned in Schedule I of the Order, Sugar is one of the articles enumerated in Part �E'' of the Schedule along with salt, Kerosine oil, cloth, yarn and cement. It appears that recognized dealer under the Order cannot keep stock at any time more than 250 quintals of sugar. It also appears that dealer authorised by (sic) Officer can hold stocks for distributions through fair price shop of more than 250 quintal of sugar.
On 25.1.86 the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati relaxed the storage limit of rice, oil, pulses, wheat and similar other products by his proceedings No. KSL 79/84/Pt./2. It is relevant to extract the material position of the said proceedings.
Assam is situated in a extreme corner of the country and Gauhati is the only centre to feed the North-Easter region; as such more demand of these commodities at Gauhati is natural. Many or the Commodities are sent to different States from this place only. Commodities are mainly supplied to these States from the Northern India, namely, rice, pulses, oil etc. During the interruption in Rail and road communication or due to disturbances, the Railway wagons or trucks may not be available for 7 or 8 days. This may result in acute price rise, If a stock of 15 days is always maintained at Gauhati then there may not be any rice in prices and it will be easier to restrict the scarcity.
Unless the relaxation period is extended for pulses, oil, rice, etc. there is every possibility of scarcity of these essential commodities and consequent price rise.
I therefore request you to extend the period of relaxation without delay.
In the meanwhile, the licensee traders have been directed to import and to keep in stock sufficient quantities, of rice pulses, oil etc. so that there may not be any scarcity of these commodities in the Gauhati market.
On 20.2.86 at 2 P.M. the Inspector of the food and Civil Supplies Department visited the premise of the Petitioner to verify the stock register and the stock. On verification it was found that the Petitioner possessed stock of koandoari sugar of 1967 bags. According to the Inspector the stock was in excess of the prescribed limit of 1000 bags. Therefore, the entire stock was seized by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the firm in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup dated 25.1.86; which is Annexure-I in the writ petition, imported khandsari sugar form other States for sale in Gauhati, On 20.2.86 the Petitioner received 1680 bags of khandsari sugar and it told only 121 bags of sugar on that day. The Petitioner also informed the Food and Civil Supplies Department on, 20.2.86 that the opening stock of khandsari sugar on that day was 408 bags. Thus, after the sale of 121 bags, the Petitioner had a total stock of 1967 bags of khandsari sugar, including the 408 bags of the opening stock of khandsari sugar.
The main plea of the Petitioner firm is that he had imported this sugar is pursuance of the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup on 25.1,86 directing the trade-licensees to import and keep in stock sufficient quantities of essential Commodities of rice, oil, pulses, wheat and sugar so that there may not be any rise in prices and scarcity of the essential articles. According to the Petitioner, he merely complied with the order of the Deputy Commissionar dated 25.1.86. Sugar is undoubtedly one of the commodities covered by the order.
Mr. P. Prasad, learned Senior Govt. Advocate however, contends that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup was not competent to issue such a direction and, in any case, it does not include sugar. It is well-settled that the orders issued by the Licensing Officers and meant for compliance and not for defiance or noncompliance, If any trader/licensee is to be punished or penalised for compliance with that order, it would be difficult for any trader to carry on his business and would result in great hardship and injustice. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be penalised or punished for having complied with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 25.1.86 directing the licensees/traders to import and keep in stock sufficient quantities of the essential commodities. We are really constrained to observe that the action of the Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Gaubati in seizing the stock is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. It is not possible to believe that the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies was not. aware of the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the seizure of 1967 bags of khandsari sugar by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Gauhati is quashed, No costs. The Misc. Case is dismissed.