AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das Gupta, J.—This Rule raises a question whether a person who has obtained a license as agent for carrying on trade in kerosene under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, requires a separate license for every place from which he sells kerosene. The petitioner was granted a license on the 1st of April, 1952, the relevant portion of which is in these words :
M/s. Dwarawprasad Hazarilall of Raiganj, West Dinajpur, is hereby licensed to carry on business as agent in kerosene from his depot at Mohan-bati, Raiganj, for supplying markets.
Though at the time the license was issued the Form A, in which license had to be given under the Control Order had been materially altered by substitution of the original condition (1) by a new one which will be Presently mentioned, the old form was used in the present case. It seems clear that in law the license must be held to be given on the condition as amended by Government by the notification, dated the 4th January, 1952, by which for the old condition No. (1) the following was substituted :
The licensee shall have his main agency or an outstation agency within the State of West Bengal wherefrom he may sell kerosene to any person or establishment requiring kerosene for his or its own consumption or to any licensed dealer in the State or to the holder of any delivery order issued by the Director in Calcutta or the District Magistrate, elsewhere.
On three different dates, viz., 30th May, 1952, 3rd June, and 4th June, 1952, the petitioner Hazarilal is said to have sold kerosene oil to three different persons from a store at Baniadpur. The prosecution case is that as Hazarilal held no license for sale of kerosene oil from Baniadpur and the license given to him mentioned a depot of Mohanbati, Raiganj, he contravened the provisions of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order and thereby committed an offence u/s 7 of the Act (Act XXIV of 1946).
On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Basu has contended that though the license given under paragraph 5 of the Control Order mentioned as the depot a particular place the license is not restricted to sell only from that depot. In the first place he has drawn our attention to the fact that the paragraph mentions granting of license "carrying on trade in kerosene". Form A provides for the mention of the depot from which business has to be carried on. It is important to notice that the body of the Form A says nothing as regards the place from which sale is to take place. It is quite possible to carry on business in kerosene from depot at place A by selling kerosene at a number of places after getting the kerosene from this depot. This in my judgment is further clear from the fact that the new condition (1) clearly assumes that a person who has been granted a license for kerosene business from a particular depot may have more than one, agency for doing so. Unless that was intended there can be no meaning in the words main agency or an outstation agency. Reading clause 5 of the Control Order with the language in the body of the Form A and the condition that has been substituted in place of the old condition (1) I have come to the conclusion that the mention of a particular place as the location of the depot from which a business as agent in kerosene is permitted to be carried on does not stand in the way of different places from which the actual sale may take place. When a person has a license to carry on his business as agent of kerosene from a depot at place A, he can therefore not sell kerosene at other places, unless he obtained it from the depot at place A. If however he obtains kerosene from place A, but sells it from sale-rooms at other places, he cannot be said to have contravened the condition of the license nor any provision of the Kerosene Control Order. I think that it cannot be seriously doubted that the sale that took place from Baniadpur shop was by the very person who had obtained license in the name of Dwarkaprasad Hazarilal!. I would therefore set aside the order of conviction and sentence and order that both the petitioners be acquitted. The order of forfeiture is also set aside. The tine, if paid, al-all be refunded.
Debabrata Mcokerjee, J.
I agree.