Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice Cyriac Joseph
Date of Judgment: 22 January 2010
Facts of the Case: The facts involved are that on 3rd February, 2000, a hundred bags of paddy were being transported by one Ramesh Sahu, the driver of truck No.MP-23DA 2115 belonging to the one Hemant Kumar, the Petitioner No.2 herein. The said driver was transporting the said paddy on the strength of a letter written on the letter pad of Bajrang Rice Mill. En route the truck was searched by the Food Inspector and the paddy was seized. In accordance with Clause 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price Control) Order, 1997, confiscation proceedings were initiated and the seized paddy was ordered to be confiscated by the Collector. An appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilsapur, in Crl. Appeal No.65 of 2001, confirming the order dated 13th March, 2001, passed by the Collector and Licensing Authority, Janjgir Champa, in Case No.60 of 2000. The Appellate Order was questioned in revision before the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur and the same was also dismissed on 18th March, 2009. The said decision is the subject matter of the present Special Leave Petition.
Judgment: Appearing in support of the Special Leave Petition, Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, learned Advocate, submitted that since the consignment in question comprised 100 quintals of paddy, the same did not attract the provisions of the aforesaid Licensing Order, 1991, and the seizure and confiscation thereof was, therefore, wholly illegal and without any legal basis. Mr. Sinha submitted that the seizure and confiscation of the paddy was wholly arbitrary and was liable to be set aside with a direction for return of the seized goods. On behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, learned Advocate, submitted that the transportation of the paddy was in violation of clause 11 of the Licensing Order, 1991, and the consignment had been rightly seized and confiscated in the absence of the documents Learned counsel submitted that no case had not been made out for interference in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we are inclined to agree with the submissions made on behalf of Respondent State, since in our view the definition of the expression “dealer” in the Licensing Order, 1991, was not intended to include only such persons as were dealing in essential commodity in quantities of more than 200 quintals. The intention of the legislature appears to have been that a dealer is a person who would be dealing in Scheduled food grains in quantities of more than 200 quintals at a time and was not confined to individual transactions as in the instant case. The Court was also of the view that it was incumbent on the part of the transporter to carry along with the consignment the documents mentioned in Clause 11 of the Licensing Order, 1991, at least for the purpose of identification, so that there was no possibility of the transported commodity being used for any purpose other than for what it was meant.
Decision: Although, the aforesaid clause 11 does not stipulate that the documents indicated therein are to be carried along with the consignment being transported, the documents concerned are safeguards against clandestine dealing in the food grains covered by the Licensing Order, 1991. The receipt or invoice as also the name of the customer and Licence Number, if any, the date of transaction and the quantity of paddy sold, are documents which prove the authenticity of the transaction entered into by the licence holder in respect of the said consignment. We are of the view that it was necessary for the said documents to accompany the consignment of paddy which was being transported. As far as the confiscation proceedings under clause 6(2) of the Control Order, 1997, are concerned, the same are dependent on the proceedings relating to the alleged violation of Clause 11 of the Licensing Order, 1991. In that view of the matter, the Court saw no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition, which was, accordingly, dismissed.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS