Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Being aggrieved by this order dated 29th December 2022, the respondent No.6 preferred WPC No. 147/2023 before this Court and vide order dated 12th January 2023, this Court had set aside the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the respondent NO.1in lieu of violation of Principal of Natural Justice and further liberty was granted to the respondent No.1 to undertake appropriate steps in accordance with law. Thereafter the petitioners again filed letter dated 23.01.2023 with the respondent No.1 to re-initiate the legal action the respondent No.6 for depositing forged and fabricated bank guarantees. The respondent No.1 acting contrary to Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016 had conducted the proceedings against respondent No.6 finding guilty of financial misappropriation and causing financial loss of State exchequer and penalty of Rs. 5 lacs was imposed by exercising Section 7 read with Section of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 9 of the Chhatisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016 in an arbitrary manner without jurisdiction to favour the respondent No.6.

8. Contention of Shri Bhaduri, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 27 th March 2023 issued by the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and void ab initio being passed in contravention of Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He submits that the respondent NO.1 is not vested with the power of an Appellate Authority under Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016. It is settled law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden. Reference has been laid upon Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India reported in (2019) 5 SCC 480. The impugned order is completely silent on the point under which provision of law it has been passed. Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 does not vest power upon the respondent No.1 to impose penalty on respondent No.6. He submits that the respondent No.5 vide its letter dated 28th December 2022 had forwarded the inquiry report to respondent No.1 wherein it has been observed in para 6 and7 of the report that the respondent No.6 and three sister firms had deposed forged and fabricated bank guarantees issued from State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 21.50 crores in 2021-22 and Rs. 20 crores 2022-23 for procurement of paddy which tantamount to financial misappropriation and it is in violation of custom milling policy. He submits that the respondent No.1 could not have lost sight of the fact that FIR No. 09/2023 has been registered against the petitioner for submission of forged and fabricated Bank Guarantees for procurement of paddy and custom milling of rice wherein Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ought to have been added against the respondent No.6. He submits that the respondent No.1 cannot dilute the illegal activities and malpractice of the respondent No.6 for favoring him under the pretext that respondent No.6 had deposited the rice for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 and no financial loss has been caused to the State exchequer. He further submits that the respondent No.1 had passed the impugned order to favour the respondent No.6 and had acted in oblivious manner without taking into consideration that once the respondent No.6 had submitted forged and fabricated bank guarantees for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22, had again submitted false and fabricated bank guarantees for the Kharif Marketing Season 2022-23 making mockery of law. It is submitted that under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the power to impose penalty is upon the Court and not on the respondent No.1. Section 10A of the Act provides that every offence punishable under the Act shall be cognizable. The power to impose penalty under the Act is vested with the Court and it is not for the respondent No.1 to decide as to whether he has committed the offence under the Act warranting penal action under Section 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that multiple complaints have been filed by them against the respondent No.6 and sister firms and they have been unpunished which is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

15. Heard learned counsels for the parties and their rival submissions and perused the documents annexed with the petitions.

16. The petitioners, though not having a clear legal standing (locus standi) based on their nomenclature, are contesting the order impugned dated 27.03.2023.The order relates to bank guarantees that are alleged to be forged and fabricated. The petitioners specifically argued that the allegations are unfounded and the process was flawed. The court will need to carefully interpret the meaning and scope of Section 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. In the context of the Essential Commodities Act, particularly Section 7(3), it reads as under:' "Under Section 7 of the Act, the power to impose penalty is upon the Court and not on the District Collector. Section 10 A of the Act provides that every offence punishable under the Act shall be cognizable. Section 11 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association. Thus, the power to impose penalty under the Act is vested with the Court and it is not for the District Collector to decide whether a person has committed the offence under the Act warranting penal action under Section 7. No sanction of the District Collector is necessary for initiating prosecution under Section 7 of the Act."

Bare perusal of the Clause 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides that if a person contravenes any provision of this order or any instruction issued under this Order or any agreement made under this order, the following punishment is prescribed:

ie. i) he shall be liable for punishment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

ii) and for penalty as mentioned in agreement and iii) rice mill may be blacklisted."