Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Order vs Unknown on 25 April, 2022
Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.3062 of 2015
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the public auction notice in Rc.No.179/2015 C.S dated 04.02.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Narasannapeta Mandal as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3(iii) of A.P. Petroleum Products Licensing and Regulations of Supply, 1980.
2. The case of the petitioner paper mill is that due to power cuts, the petitioner company was forced to use generators and to run generators, the petitioner company is buying HSD oil from IOC company through tankers and the petitioner applied for Form-B license on 21.02.2012 for storing HSD oil in the factory premises. While so, respondents inspected the petitioner's company on 29.12.2012 (Learned counsel Sri A.Kishore Kumar representing Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date mentioned in the affidavit is a mistake and the actual date of inspection is 28.09.2012) and found 9000 litres of HSD oil which is stored by the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.10.2012 alleging that the petitioner unauthorizedly stored 9000 litres of HSD oil, without any B- Form license and asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the seized stock should not be confiscated to the 2 Government. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and the Joint Collector through proceedings dated 01.10.2012 directed the District Supply Officer for interim disposal of the seized stock and subsequently on 01.07.2013, 100% stock that was seized was confiscated to the Government and aggrieved by the said confiscation order, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2013 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srikakuilam under Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said Criminal Appeal was dismissed and after dismissal of the said Criminal Appeal, the 3rd respondent issued auction notice dated 04.02.2015 for sale of the seized HSD oil and the said auction notice is impugned in the present Writ Petition.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Joint Collector stating inter alia that auction notice is issued as the stock was confiscated.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the application for issuance of Form-B license is filed by the petitioner on 21.02.2012 and as the inspection was conducted after the application filed by the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have passed the confiscation order and further contends that impugned auction notice is without 3 giving any opportunity to the petitioner to redeem the seized stock.
6. Assuming for a moment that the petitioner filed an application seeking grant of Form-B license, but the same was not granted to him as on the date of inspection, the application said to have been filed by the petitioner does not contain stamp of the authority who received the same. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have license as on the date of inspection and seizure of the stock. Apart from that, the confiscation orders and the orders in Criminal Appeal No.63/2013 under Section 6(c) of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 were not challenged in the Writ Petition. Without challenging the said two orders, the impugned auction notice is challenged on the ground that the authority ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to redeem of the seized stock. But the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any provision which gives him such a right and after the confiscation orders are passed and confirmed in appeal, no opportunity need be given to the petitioner to redeem the stock unless the Control Orders says so.
7. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 13.02.2015, an order of status quo was granted and the same was extended by two more weeks on 20.02.2015 and thereafter, the same was not extended. As the said interim order expired in the year 2015 and as there is no extension of 4 interim order and in the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 25.04.2022 Rmn 5 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.3062 of 2015 Date: 25.04.2022 Rmn