Vijayawada Vanaspathi Merchants Assn. and Others vs Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

M.N. Rao, J.—The first petitioner is an association and petitioner Nos. 2 to 20 are oil traders and members of the first petitioner and they are licenced dealers under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (for short "the Order"). They deal in purchase and sale of ground-nut oil, refined oils, vanaspathi and gingelly oil which are all edible oils besides coconut oil. They are challenging in this writ petition a circular issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 4-5-1987 in Ref. No. P.5/69/87 by which all the Collectors in the Districts and the Chief Rationing Officer in the city of Hyderabad were asked to issue instructions to all the dealers in edible oils and edible oil seeds not to store any non-edible oils or seeds in the licenced business premises. In compliance with mat, the Deputy Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada, issued another circular on 7-7-1987 in Rc. No. 45/87 informing the petitioners that they should not store any non-edible oils or seeds in their business premises or else they will be liable to punishment.

The case of the petitioners is that no restrictions are envisages either in the Essential Commodities Act or under any control order issued under that Act forbidding dealers in edible oils from storing non-edible oil or seeds in their premises. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Collector, Krishna, it is asserted that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad has informed the District Collectors and the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad that "Government have noticed that some of the dealers in edible oils are storing non-edible oils like castor oil in the business premises with the intention of mixing them with edible oils and requested the Collectors to issue instructions to all the dealers in edible oils and oil seeds not to store any non-edible oils or seeds in the licenced business premises". It is also averred that such power is traceable to Clause 12 (1) of the Order.

The question for consideration is: whether the petitioners have a right to store non-edible oils and seeds in their business premises? What is noticed very prominently in this case is that the petitioners have not stated any reasons in the affidavit as to why they want to keep in their business premises large quantities of non-edible oils and seeds when they are licenced to deal in edible oils. The definition of ''edible oil'' under Clause (2) (h) (ii) (a) is "any oil used for cooking for human consumption and includes hydrogenated vegetable oils". By Clause (12) of the above control order, the Government, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, the District Collector or the licensing authority are empowered to issue "instructions or directions on all matters covered by the provisions of this order and all dealers shall comply with the same". As the petitioners, admittedly, are dealers in edible oils, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies has power under Clause (12) to issue instructions prohibiting the dealers from storing in their business premises non-edible oils or seeds. The reason for issuing the impugned circular as mentioned in the counter- affidavit appears to be true viz., that complaints were received by the Government that some of the dealers are storing non-edible oils in their business with the intention of mixing them with edible oils. The circular is by way of a regulatory measure flowing from the power conferred by Clause (12) and, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention that the two impugned circulars have no foundation in law.

The writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.