Saurashtra Auto Rickshaw Drivers Association vs State of Gujarat and Another

P.R Gokulakrishnan, C.J.—This Special Civil Application questions the impugned order dated 4th November, 1988 (Annexure ''A'' to the petition). By the said impugned order, the Collector, Rajkot, with a view to make a proper and equitable distribution of kerosene, has stated that any person holding, controlling or using the auto rickshaw shall not use kerosene as a fuel to furnish motor power to the rickshaw nor shall be manage to use or shall not allow anybody to use in such manner. No person shall use kerosene for running rickshaw. The said order of the Collector was passed u/s (Clause) 25 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licence, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. The petitioner questions the vires of Section (Clause) 25 of the said order, on the ground that there is no guideline or safeguard in this Section (Clause), and as such the authority using the power under this Section (Clause), be restrained. It is further stated that the order in question was issued only at Rajkoi and as such it is discriminatory in nature and as such it cannot be sustned. Mr. S 1 Nanavan. learned Counsel appearing for the pititioner states that there cannot be any control with regard to the use of the kerosene once it is distributed to the consumers. It is also difficult to know whether the consumer has received kerosene for his own domestic purpose or for running auto rickshaw. The learned Counsel further states that, even at the petrol pumps, kerosene is mixed and if any rickshaw driver takes petrol, held up subsequently by the authorities concerned, there may be possibility of a case against the rickshaw driver as if he has mixed kerosene for running his auto rickshaw

We do not think that this argument advanced by Mr. Nanavati has any substance. We cannot proceed on the presumption that in the petrol pumps, petrol is supplied by mixing kerosene. As and when such situations arise, law and authority will take appropriate steps for checking such malpractices.

As regards the power of the Collector to issue the order, we can usefully refer to Clause 25 of the Gajarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 which reads as follows:

Clause 25: Powers to issue directions to persons other than dealer or producer-

(1) The State Gavemment, the Director of Civil Supplies, the Director of Food, the Food and Civil Supplies Controller, Ahmedabad City, the Collector of the District or any licensing authority may in accordance with the provisions of this order and for ensuring fair equitable distribution of essential articles, by general or special order, issue to any person or class of persons (other than dealer or producer) such directions regarding:

(i) implementation of distribution system referred to in Clause 18;

(ii) acquisition storage, maintenance of stock and method of purchase of essential articles;

(iii) maintenance of purchase bills and cash memo in respect of purchase of essential article, submission of returns or furnishing of information; and

(iv) such other directions relating to just, proper and equitable distribution of essential articles, as it or he, as the case may deem fit.

(2) Every person other than a dealer or producer to whom any direction is issued under Sub-clause (1) shall comply with such direction.

Section (Clause) 25(iv) clearly states "such other directions relating to just, proper and equitable distribution of essential articles, as it or he, as the case may, deem fit". This Clause will cover all the persons except the dealer and producer. Naturally, the presumption is that every person other than the dealer and producer is covered by this Clause (Sub-clause) (2) of Section (Clause) 25 fortify this conclusion, which reads as follows:

Every person other than a dealer or producer to whom any direction is issued under Sub-clause (1) shall comply with such direction.

Kerosene being an essential commodity and distributed with utmost care in order to reach the last man in the society, it has to be properly controlled or otherwise by misuse, the same may not reach the persons who require the same. Using kerosene as a fuel to run a rickshaw, is definitely a practise which has to be discouraged Correctly, the Collector at Rajkot. perhaps noticing this unhealthy practice in respeci of use of kerosene, issued the order on the strength of Clause 25 referred 10 above. For proper distribution of the available kerosene, the misuse of it has to be checked. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that, since there is no guidelines or safeguards for issuing such order by virtue of the power under Clause 25. will be arbitrarily used by the authority concerned. Clause 25 which is an enactment under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981, clearly states in Clause (Sub-clause) (iv) of Section (Clause) 25. that such direction is given for the purpose of just, proper and equitable distribution of essential articles. This is a safeguard for the purpose of proper distribution of the essential commodity and any arbitrary action de hors the said provision, can easily be quashed as and when occasion arises. Any order passed by the Collector must be just, proper and equitable in the interest of public and for proper distribution of the essential/commodity.

There is no question of discrimination as alleged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The misuse of kerosene felt by the Collector at Rajkot, necessitated the passing of the impugned order. It will be followed as and when required by other areas of the State of Gujarat. It is also not correct to say that auto rickshaw alone has been discriminated while there is no restriction for other vehicles for using the kerosene. This averment proceeds on the assumption that other vehicles are being run on kerosene. We do not find any substance in this argument since the order is passed to check the malpractices adopted by the auto rickshaw drivers by using kerosene as a fuel and such misuse will definitely affect the proper distribution of kerosene to the public at large. Hence, we do not find any discrimination as such in passing such an order by the Collector concerned.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in this Special Civil Application and the same is dismissed.