CWP No. 4009 of 2014. Case: Vijay Traders Vs State of Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCWP No. 4009 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: T.S. Chauhan, Advocate and For Respondents: Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General and Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
JudgesSanjay Karol and Piar Singh Rana, JJ.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 226; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 2(a), 3, 5, 6, 6A, 6B
Judgement DateJuly 25, 2014
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Sanjay Karol, J.

  1. Petitioner Vijay Kumar, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Vijay Traders, undisputedly, is engaged in the business/trade of sale of food items. He has a shop at Tauni Devi, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. On 8.3.2013, officials of the Food and Supplies Department (hereinafter referred to as the Department) inspected his shop. After issuing a show cause notice and affording two opportunities to file response, which petitioner failed to do so, the authorities passed an order dated 6.12.2013, asking him to deposit fine for having violated the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "Order 1981").

  2. On 17.1.2014, petitioner's shop was inspected by the Officers/officials of the Department. Again, he was found to have violated the mandatory provisions of "Order 1981". Without license, he had stored for sale essential commodity, i.e. edible food items. Explanation furnished by the petitioner, in his defence, was found to be incorrect; hence, his premises were again inspected on 18.1.2014. Prima facie finding him to have violated the statutory provisions, he was issued a show cause notice. Vide impugned order dated 30.5.2014 (Annexure P-7), the District Collector, District Hamirpur, holding the petitioner to have contravened the provisions of "Order 1981" and the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in exercise of his power under Section 6A of the "Act" directed confiscation and sale of such food items.

  3. Petitioner's appeal filed before the Appellate Authority stands rejected vide impugned order dated 22.5.2014 (Annexure P-9).

  4. Assailing these two orders, Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made the following submissions,-(i) prior to issuance of impugned orders (Annexures P-7 & P-9), petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the authorities; (ii) confiscated food items, i.e. oil seeds, edible oils and pulses, are not "essential commodity" falling within the purview of the provisions of the "Act"; hence, action of the respondent-authorities is ultra vires the "Act" and petitioner's constitutional right of earning his livelihood; (iii) in the absence of compliance of mandatory provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the "Act", notification, if any, bringing such items within the purview of the "Act" or "Order 1981" is neither binding nor enforceable.

  5. While dilating on the scope of judicial review, learned Advocate General, ably assisted by his team, has defended the action of the District Collector, being totally legal, just and fair. He has placed on record various orders and notifications issued from time to time.

  6. It cannot be disputed that confiscated essential commodities, i.e. oil seeds (98.61 quintals), edible oils (68.871 quintals) & pulses (155.95 quintals), were recovered from the petitioner's premises.

  7. The issue, which arises for consideration, in the present petition, is as to whether petitioner's activity of storage and sale of such food items is governed and regulated under the provisions of the "Act" and orders issued thereunder or not. In our considered view, answer to the question lies in various provisions of the Act and the notifications issued by the State Government from time to time.

  8. The Legislative intent behind the "Act" is evidently clear. In the interest of general public, for the control of production, supply and distribution of certain commodities, after enactment, the "Act" was notified by the Central Government. The object was to deter a person from illegally, dealing in any essential commodity. It is also to impose a deterrent penalty against the person, who violates the provisions, more so with impunity.

  9. Section 2(a) of the "Act", defines "essential commodity" to mean a commodity specified in the schedule. The Central Government is empowered to add or remove any such commodity from the schedule.

  10. Section 3 of the "Act" empowers the Central Government to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT