AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Fard Inspection Report/Sealing Order dated 22-05.2010 passed by respondent No. 2 & 3 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the business of the petitioner in any manner.
(iii) Pass any other and further orders, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.
The petitioner is a dealer of the respondent No. 4 and is running its Business in the name and style M/s Pooja H.P. Gas Service, Bura Rani Road, Rudrapur. According to the petitioner, on the instigation of rival elements in the business, a raid was made of the go-down of the petitioner''s agency by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at 7-40 a.m. on 22-5-2010, without giving any information to the petitioner. It appears that some irregularities were found in the go-down of the petitioner''s gas agency and as per inspection report, two gas refilling instruments (Chinese Banshi) were found in the room of the Chowkidar and in the go-down, there was no weighting bridge, spring balance for weighing the cylinder. It was also noticed that no stock register of sale was found. The raiding party ultimately sealed the go-down of the petitioner''s agency on account of the above irregularities and the vehicle No. UA 010820 containing gas cylinders was taken for inspection and weight to the office of the petitioner''s agency. A memo was prepared to that effect (Annexure No. 2 to the petition).
The grievance of the petitioner is that the raiding party instead of seizing the alleged objectionable instruments, has sealed the go-down, which is against the control orders. If any irregularities were found, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have a right to seize those instruments and articles and to proceed in the matter, but the sealing of the go-down is not tenable in the eye of law.
On behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, counter affidavit has been filed. The affidavit has been sworn in by Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi, Supply Inspector, Rudrapur (one of the members of the raiding party). It is stated in the counter affidavit that the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar received complaints pertaining to M/s Pooja Gas Agency that the Liquefied Petroleum gas is being taken out from the domestic gas cylinders containing 14.2 kg. Gas and is being refilled in 19 kg. Commercial gas cylinders to be sold underhand in the market at commercial rate. On the direction of higher authorities, the raid was made. At the time of raid the main gate of the go-down was found open and 50 domestic gas cylinders and 14 commercial gas cylinders were being loaded in Mahendra Pickup No. UA-010820. The memo of inspection was prepared in presence of the Chowkidar and driver of the vehicle. It is also stated that at the time of inspection, the District Supply Officer Udham Singh Nagar and Sub Divisional Magistrate Rudrapur were also accompanying the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is also stated that no stock-board/rate list was displayed in the go-down and stock registers were not made available at the time of raid. It is also stated that that no spring balance and weighing machine was available either in the show-room or in the go-down of the agency. A First Information Report was lodged in the police station Kotwali at 3.00 p.m. against Smt. Pooja, the owner-cum-proprietor and one Himanshu Dabar, Manager of the gas agency. Along with the counter affidavit, Government Notification dated 15-10-2005 and copy of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 have been annexed as Annexure CA-1 and C.A.-2 to the counter affidavit.
The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the irregularities pointed out in the memo of raid/inspection (Annexure-2 to the petition) cannot be a ground for seizure of the go-down of the petitioner instead of the alleged offending articles.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Advocate, informed the Court that till today, the licence of the gas agency has not been terminated and no information was given by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that any irregularities had been committed by the petitioner.
In the above facts and circumstances, it is directed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall open the seal of the go-down of the petitioner in the presence of the Proprietor of the gas agency. However, the respondent authorities may seal those articles, which according to them, the petitioner is having illegally or may also seize under-weight cylinders and unauthorized refilling instruments, referred to above in the memo of seizure. It is also clarified that in respect of non-availability of those articles, which are necessary, like weigh-bridge, spring machine, etc. they may take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
The petitioner is directed that records of stock, sale etc. shall also be produced before the Officers of the supply department, if they require the same for inspection.
With the said observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.