Kerala High Court
N.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Commissioner Of Civil Supplies on 2 January, 2007
Author: S. Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 11465 of 2002(M)
1. N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,AGED 61 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA.
3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,CHERTHALA.
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
O.P. No. 11465 OF 2002 M
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a dealer in Liquid Petroleum Gas under licence from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The respondents initiated proceedings against him for violation of the provisions of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 and Essential Commodities Act 1955. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued detailing the irregularities found out on inspection conducted on 11.8.2000. The irregularities found out were as follows:
" 1. The dealer has not exhibited the stock and price board at a conspicuous place of the business;
2. The register showing the details of newly registered applicants for getting new LPG connections not maintained;
3. Stock register of LPG cylinders not written since 30.5.2000;
4. Storage licence not produced for inspection;
5. On verification of Godown register, excess stock of one defective cylinder was noticed. Since the petitioner's explanation to the same was not OP.11465/02 2 satisfactory, by Ext.P3 order, the District Collector, taking a lenient view imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal to the Government was also rejected by Ext.P4 order. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P5 notice has been issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed on him as fine. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P3, P4 and P5 in this original petition. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has advanced methods of accounting with the help of the computer and all the details in respect of which show cause notice has been issued were available in the computer and, therefore, there was no violation of any provisions of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 and Essential Commodities Act 1955 as alleged by the respondents is the submission made by the petitioner. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P7 letter from the BPCL to the District Collector which would also show that the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of the above said order and the Essential Commodities Act.
2. However, the learned Government Pleader points out to me with the help of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent that by Ext.R3(b) statement the petitioner himself has categorically admitted the irregularities mentioned in the show cause notice and orders and, therefore, the petitioner cannot now validly contend that he is not guilty of the irregularities found against him.
OP.11465/02 33. In Ext.R3(b) which is not disputed by the petitioner, it has been specifically stated as translated below:
" The petitioner's depot has been inspected at 9.30 am on 11.8.2000. At the time of inspection in the stock board the days' stock had not been entered. Although stock board was there, the particulars of stock were not exhibited. Registers showing the stock particulars were not kept and only "daily issue instructions slips" were maintained. Registers showing the particulars of the consumers were not kept. Registers showing the details of the persons, who registered or LPG connection during 1995 and 1996 were not kept. The details of the persons, who registered for connection during the said years were available in the computer. The same can be produced today evening in the supply office. Storage licence has been submitted before the Department of Explosives, Government of India for the purpose of renewal and the same has not been received back."
From the same, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner himself admits at least some of the irregularities alleged against him. That being so, I do not find anything wrong with the imposition of a meager amount of Rs.1,000/- as fine on the petitioner for such irregularities. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) aks S. SIRI JAGAN , J.
OP No.11465/02M J U D G M E N T 2nd January, 2007