S. Gopalakrishnan vs The District Collector

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7 June 2013 on the file of District Collector, Puducherry,

whereby and whereunder, High Speed Diesel illegally transferred from the carrier was confiscated.

The facts:

The petitioner is running a retail outlet at Kannikoil, Puducherry. The petitioner used to transport petroleum products in his tanker lorry bearing

Registration No. TN-31-AF-6670. While so, on 26 April 2013, the tanker lorry loaded 20,000 litres of diesel and it was transported from

Korukkupet terminal of Indian Oil Corporation to his outlet at Puducherry. Since the employees were not available for unloading, the tanker lorry

was parked at Thavalakuppam. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nattapakkam seized the tanker lorry alleging that the petitioner was in the process of

unloading the product to another lorry for the purpose of transportation and sale to the nearby State of Tamil Nadu. The vehicle was produced

before the respondent resulting in initiating proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court

and pursuant to the said order, the Tanker lorry was released. The petitioner wanted early disposal of confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, the

respondent issued notice to the petitioner and thereafter passed final orders confiscating the petroleum products. The said order is challenged in

this writ petition.

Submissions:

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has not cited any of the specific provisions of the Puducherry Motor Spirit

and High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1985 in the order confiscating the petroleum products and as such

the very order is liable to be quashed. According to the learned counsel there is no provision in the Essential Commodities Act or under the

Control Order making interchange of petroleum products from one lorry to another lorry a cognisable offence. The respondent was therefore not

justified in passing the impugned order.

The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner made an attempt to transfer the product from one tanker lorry to another

with a view to sell it in the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu for higher price. According to the learned Government Pleader the police found the

illegal act of unloading the product from the authorised carrier to another carrier and the same would amount to black marketing. The learned

Government Pleader submitted that the respondent was fully justified in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:

The petitioner is a dealer of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Puducherry. The tanker lorry owned by the petitioner transported petroleum

products from Korukkupet to Puducherry. The First Information Report registered by the police shows that the employees of the petitioner

indulged in interchanging 20,000 litres of Diesel from one tanker lorry to another with a view to transport it to the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu

for selling the same for higher price. Though the invoice was raised in the name of the petroleum dealership of the petitioner and in respect of his

lorry, there was no such indication with respect to the other lorry. There was no invoice showing that the other carrier was transporting petroleum

products as entrusted by a particular Oil Company. The report submitted by the police and the evidence recorded before the respondent, during

the course of confiscation proceedings made the authority constituted under the Essential Commodities Act to pass the impugned order.

The petitioner who is a retail dealer is expected to supply petroleum products only to a vehicle having a diesel/petrol tank. Bulk sale is not

permitted. The tank should be filled to the vehicle, meaning thereby, diesel or petrol tank to store fuel.

Section 7(1) of the Puducherry Motor Spirit and High Speed Oil (Maintenance and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1985 contains a statutory

prohibition for supply of petrol and diesel in bulk. However, supply to a person having licence issued by the Licensing Authority is permitted. The

petitioner through his servants made an attempt to sell diesel to another tanker owned by a third party having no licence to purchase diesel in bulk.

The filling was not in the fuel tank. It was nothing but a storage in the tanker, prohibited u/s 7(1) of the Control Order, and liable for confiscation.

Merely because a different provision was quoted, it cannot be said that the subject transaction would not constitute violation of the Control Order.

The offence committed by the petitioner would come u/s 7(1) of the Order and as such the respondent was fully justified in passing the impugned

order of confiscation.

The impugned order is an appealable order before the authority constituted under the Puducherry Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil

(Maintenance and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1985. The petitioner has no case that the respondent failed to conduct the proceedings in

accordance with the provisions of the Control Order. In fact, it was the petitioner, who moved this Court with a prayer to expedite the confiscation

proceedings. The respondent issued notice to the petitioner and only after hearing him passed the impugned order. The order passed by the

respondent cannot be termed as illegal, irrational or suffers from procedural irregularity. The statute contain a clear remedy for redressing the

grievance. The petitioner has not stated any reason to bypass the statutory remedy. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by

the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.