Madan Gopal Badari Narayana Firm vs Addl. Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Ex-Officio Secretary to Govt. Food and Agriculture, Hyd. and others

This writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, 2nd Respondent herein, in V.10/1633/84 dated 16-2-1984 and confirmed by the Additional Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, 1st Respondent herein, in G.O. Ms. No.589, Food & Agriculture (CS.I) Department, dated 10-4-1992 and quashing the same.

The petitioner-Firm is a licensed foodgrain dealer doing wholesale and retail business in food-grains, edible oil seeds and edible oils. On 1-2-1984 the A.G.P.O., Kakinada along with his staff conducted a surprise check on its business premises. During that surprise inspection it was found that the petitioner was not maintaining any stock register for the stocks being dealt with by it and also did not exhibit price-cum-stock board and thereby contravened the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and Condition 3 of the Licence issued under the said order. The A.G.P.O. then seized 21 quintals of rice, 7 bags of myda and 8 tins of cotton seed oil and filed a report u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short "the Act") before the 2nd Respondent. Based on the said Section 6A report, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to submit its explanation to the charge framed thereunder. The petitioner submitted its explanation. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner''s explanation, the 2nd Respondent held that the petitioner has contravened Clause 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and Condition 3 of the Licence granted under the said order and also contravened Clause 3 of A.P. Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966. Since there was no clandestine transaction, the 2nd Respondent took a sympathetic view and ordered confiscation of only half of the seized stocks.

Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal u/s 6-C of the Act before the 1st respondent. That appeal was rejected in G.O. Ms. No.589, dated 10-4-1992. Both these orders are not challenged in this Writ Petition.

A perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the appellate order passed by the 1st respondent do not disclose any patent error or infirmity, nor could the Counsel for the petitioner point out any such patent error or legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the appellate order further shows that the petitioner having admitted that it could not maintain the registers and did not exhibit the stock-cum-price list board sought to justify its action on certain circumstances which were not accepted by both the authorities.

Relying upon the decision of this Court in Dharani Trading Company v. State of A.P. 1974 (2) APLJ 166, the petitioner''s Counsel, however, submitted that having regard to the fact that no clandestine business was observed during the inspection, the authorities ought not to have passed the order of confiscation of 50% of the stocks seized. He further submitted that, at any rate, only 25% of the stocks seized ought to have been confiscated having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

I do not find any merit in this submission. The guidelines laid down by this Court in the decision referred to by the petitioner''s Counsel have been followed by the authorities. Giving due weight to the fact that no clandestine business was established against the petitioner, only 50% of the stocks were confiscated. I do not find any improper exercise of the discretion vested in the authorities.

The Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.