Murlidhar Ishwar Das vs State of Rajasthan

P.K. Banerjee, C.J.—In this rule, the petitioner challenges the proceedings taken u/s 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with notification of Central Government vide S.O. No. 1844 dated 18-6-66 and notification dated 8-12-1971 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 11-12-71, by which it is incumbent on the part of the dealers of the petrolieum product to display the particulars of stock of the commodities at the relevant time. Admittedly, the petitioner had 5000 litres of mobil oil, which was, however, not meant for stock at Jodhpur, but was on way to Alwar and because of the flood situation there, could not be transported. In that view of the matter, it appears prima facie, that the stock was not of the petitioner. But be that as it may I am not concerned with the finding on this issue at all because this point stands concluded by the judgment of this Court reported in Sohan Lal Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan RLW 1975 199 by Mr. Justice Lodha. His lordship has held that as the notification dated 18-6-1966 was not with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, the notification is void ab initio and any notification issued on the basis of that power cannot be sustained and must be set aside, which I hereby do.

In the result, the charge sheet which was issued on the basis of the void order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. It appears, by the interim order of this Court, the goods were not allowed to be confiscated and were returned to the petitioner. That order stands. The order of confiscation is set aside and the security furnished is dissolved. The rule is made absolute as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.