Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Zoom Enterprise - Thro' Parth G Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 11 November, 2014

Author: G.R.Udhwani

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

        R/CR.RA/609/2014                                ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                   SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 609 of 2014

===========================================================
       ZOOM ENTERPRISE - THRO' PARTH G PATEL....Applicant
                            Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HR PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant.
MS MOXA THAKKAR ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for 1st Respondent.
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                            Date : 11/11/2014


                             ORAL ORDER

RULE.  

Having   considered   the   arguments   as   to  interim­relief, prima facie, it appears to be admitted  position that the petitioner is a parallel distributor  and   not   a   person   having   connection   for   liquefied  petroleum gas under the public distribution system and  therefore   clause­3   of   LPG   (Regulation   of   Supply   and  Distribution)   Order,   2000   was   not   available   to   the  respondents for proceeding against the petitioner for  violation   of   the   said   order.     Similarly,   as   per  clause-6 selling of unauthorized LPG gas is prohibited  except by Government Oil Company, a parallel marketer  or   distributor.   Admittedly,   the   petitioner   is   a  distributor of a petroleum marketer and therefore, the  Page 1 of 3 R/CR.RA/609/2014 ORDER restrictions as contemplated in clause-6 of the Order,  2000 would not apply.

Furthermore,   clause­7   merely   postulates   a  restrictions   of   supply   or   sell   of   various   articles  contemplated therein to a person other than Government  Oil   Company   or   parallel   marketer,   etc.     Such   a  situation   is   not   contemplated   in   the   impugned   show­ cause   notice   and   therefore,   the   said   provision   does  not apply.  

The   petitioner   is   also   alleged   to   have  violated clause­10 in not maintaining the Register and  account­books   by   him.   In   this   connection,   learned  Counsel   for   the   petitioner   invited   the   attention   of  this Court to the following observations made by the  Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in  N.   Nagendra   Rao   &   Co.,   Vs.   State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1994 SC 2663].  

"5... But  what  needs  to  be mentioned  is that since   the   power   is   very   wide   as   a     person   violating     the   Control   Orders   is   to   be   visited   with     serious  consequences   leading   not only to the confiscation   of   the seized goods, packages or vessel or vehicle in which   such   essential   commodity   is   found   or   is   conveyed   or   carried, but   is   liable   to   be   prosecuted   and   penalised   under Section 7  of the   Act, it is inherent in it that   those   who   are     entrusted   with       responsibility     to   implement  it  should  act with reasonableness, fairness  and   to   promote     the   purpose   and   objective   of   the   Act.   Further, it should not be lost  sight of  that the goods   seized are liable to be confiscated only   if   the  Collector   is   satisfied   about   violation   of   the   Control   Orders.   The  language   of     the     section     and   its   setting indicate  that   every   contravention    cannot   entail confiscation.   That  is why the  section uses  the   word     'may'.   A   trader   indulging   in   black   marketing   or   selling adulterated goods  etc.  should  not, in absence   of  any  violation,  be treated on a par with technical   violations such as  failure to put up the pricelist etc.   Page 2 of 3 R/CR.RA/609/2014 ORDER or even discrepancies in stock."

It   clearly   appears   therefrom   that   the  confiscating authority is expected to apply its mind  before   confiscation   order.   The   observations   also  indicate   that   for   technical   breach,   in   absence   of  allegations of black marketing etc., punishment equal  to  the   person   indulging  into   black   marketing  is  not  warranted.

Almost, similar view has been taken by this  Court in Patel Ambaram Kuberbhai Vs. State of Gujarat   & Ors. [1998 (2) GLH 533].

In above view of the matter,  interim­relief  in terms of paragraph  No.6(B) and 6(C)  is granted on  the   condition   of   the  petitioner   executing  a   bond   in  the sum of Rs.60,000/­ (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) as  also   a   surety   of   the   like   amount   before   the   Court  below.

Direct Service is permitted.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) sompura Page 3 of 3