Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2018
1 WP-5900-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-5900-2017
(ANIL KUMAR SHAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
13
Indore, Dated : 13-12-2018
Shri Ajay Bagadiya, learned counsel and Shri G.S. Chouhan, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner- petrol pump dealer against the confirming
order dated 08.08.2017 in Cr.A No.550/2016 by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Ujjain affirming the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Collector.
By the said order, it has been ordered for confiscation of 7011 liters of petrol
and 3525 liters of diesel seized during the raid conducted by the Food
Inspector at the petitioner's- petrol pump and consequential cancellation of
licence No.199 dated 09.08.2006 issued in favour of the petitioner.
Facts in nutshell are to effect that the petitioner has established a petrol
pump in the name and style of C.P.Shah & Brothers, Ujjain. Admittedly on 28.07.2016, a raid was conducted at the petitioner's- petrol pump by the Food Inspector and found that the petitioner has violated Clause No.4(1), 4(2), 5(2) of M.P. Petrol Diesel (Licence and Control) Order, 1980 (for short 'the Control Order') and condition no.4 of the licence issued by the Food Department. A notice was issued under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner has submitted reply and upon due opportunity to the petitioner, a detailed order has been passed that the petitioner has violated earlier Section 11 of M.P. Motor Spirit and High Diesel O i l (Licence and Control) Order, 1980, passed by the Collector. Consequently, the Collector had also ordered for cancellation of license and also confiscation of the petrol and diesel.
Petitioner has preferred an appeal against cancellation of license before 2 WP-5900-2017 the Commissioner/ appellate authority. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2017 Annexure P/3.
Petitioner has also preferred an appeal against confiscation of aforesaid commodity of petrol and diesel under Section 6(C) of the Essential Commodities Act before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. The appellate Court has found that the licence was expired on 31.12.2015. The raid was conducted on 28.07.2016. Thereafter, the application for renewal of licence was filed on 30.07.2016 and the license was renewed only w.e.f. 09.08.2016 till 31/12/2018. As such on the date of the raid i.e., 28.07.2016 since petitioner did not have a valid licence to run petrol pump, the confiscation ordered by the Collector on 13.12.2016 cannot be faulted with and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Taking exception to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fees for renewal of the license was deposited on 09.06.2016. Hence, the renewal of licence on 09.08.2016 shall be deemed to be dated back to the date of deposit of the fees. Therefore, as on the date of raid i.e. on 28.07.2016, the petitioner should be deemed to have valid licence. The argument so advanced is more of desperation than of substance. The alleged deposit of fee is not borne out from the record of the Court below and also from the impugned order passed by the Court below. Be that as it may. Admittedly, as on the date of raid i.e. 28.07.2016; the petitioner did not have a valid licence. Even the application for renewal was filed only on 30.07.2016 whereas, the licence had expired on 31.12.2015. In the opinion of this Court, the prescribed authority (Collector) has rightly found that the petitioner did not have valid licence on the date of search and seizure of the aforesaid essential commodity and the said finding has been rightly upheld by the appellate Court. Hence, no fault can be found with the confiscation order.
Writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE 3 WP-5900-2017 Vibha Vibha Pachori 2018.12.20 10:31:04 +05'30'