JUDGEMENT
SANDEEP MEHTA,J. -
(1.)By way of this revision, the petitioners herein have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Appeal No. 14/2016 affirming the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar in Case No. 62/2015 whereby, the application preferred by the District Supplies Department under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was accepted and the seized pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-13-GB-1906, 2200 litres. diesel and 11 plastic drums were directed to be confiscated. Simultaneously, a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed in lieu of returning the vehicle to its registered owner i.e. the petitioner Rajendra kumar.
(2.)Facts in brief are that the aforesaid pick-up vehicle was stopped by the officers of the DSO, Sri Ganganagar on 08.07.2015 on the Suratgarh National Highway No. 15. The petitioner Arvind Swami was driving the vehicle. Upon inquiry, he informed that he was engaged as a driver on the vehicle by Rajendra Kumar, the registered owner thereof. Arvind Kumar further disclosed that he was carrying diesel purchased from a petrol pump at Punjab for selling the same to the farmers of Rajiyasar. On inspection, 11 drums each containing 200 litres. of diesel were found stored in the vehicle. The driver could not provide any proof for valid possession of the diesel at the time of inspection. Accordingly, the vehicle as well as the drums containing diesel were seized. The Supplies Department moved an application under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act before the District Collector Sri Ganganagar seeking confiscation of the vehicle and the diesel drums. The petitioners, upon receiving notice of these proceedings, put in appearance and filed reply thereto. Rajendra Singh asserted in his reply that he owns 25 bighas of agricultural land in village Thukrana and was a farmer. He was the registered owner of the vehicle in question which was being used for his personal purposes. Arvind Swami was engaged as a driver on the seized vehicle. It was further mentioned that Prithviraj, Mahesh Kumar and other farmers of Suratgarh were on friendly terms with Rajendra Kumar. They requested Rajendra Kumar to procure diesel from Punjab for their personal farming operations. On this, Rajendra Singh sent Arvind Swami in his pick-up vehicle for purchasing diesel from Shergarh (Punjab). The diesel was purchased in the proportions of 800 litres. for Rajendra himself, 850 litres for Prithviraj and 550 litres. for Mahesh Kumar. While the diesel was in the process of being transported to the respective purchasers, the DSO and his team seized the same. It was also mentioned in the application that individual bills of purchase were presented to the inspection team at the time of seizure and they were apprised that the diesel was not meant for sale in the market but the same were ignored. It is relevant to mention here that the reply was also supported by the affidavits of Rajendra Kumar, Prithviraj and Mahesh Kumar. The District Collector however, repelled the plea taken by the petitioners claiming release of the diesel as well as the vehicle and while accepting the application filed under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, directed confiscation of the seized drums, diesel as well as the vehicle as mentioned above. The petitioners challenged the order of confiscation dated 12.12.2015 passed by the District Collector by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court which was rejected vide order dated 21.06.2016. Hence, the instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners for challenging both these orders.
(3.)Shri Hemant Dutt learned counsel representing the petitioners relied upon the Petroleum Products (Maintenance of Production, Storage and Supply) Order, 1999 and urged that as per definition clause No. 2(i) of the said Order, Petroleum products upto 2500 litres. can be sold at a time to one customer. He thus urged that there was no legal impediment against purchase of diesel from Punjab which was procured by Rajendra for himself and his known farmers in a bona fide manner through his driver Arvind and was being lawfully transported in the pick up vehicle. He contended that the bills of purchase were provided to the seizure officer at the time of the inspection but the same were ignored and were not taken on record intentionally. Shri Dutt placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State Of Orissa, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2531 and this Court's judgment in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1361/2014 (Karamjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan), decided on 02.02.2016 and, urged that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on two grounds (i) that the diesel was seized in the process of transportation and as such, the provisions of the State Government notification dated 11.04.2005 imposing a restriction/cap on storage of diesel exceeding 1000 litres. would have no application and (ii) that the Central Government notifications which were considered and appreciated by this Court while deciding Karamjeet's case, have an overriding effect and thus the State Government's notification could not have been applied to the detriment of the petitioners' valid claim for the seized goods and vehicle. He thus contended that the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law and deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.