LexCOLLECTOR OF GANJAM AND ANR. versus RAMESH CHANDER PADHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 957 COLLECTOR OF GANJAM AND ANR. A v. RAMESH CHANDER PADHI (Civil Appeal No. 755 of 2009) FEBRUARY 6, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Essential Commodities Act, 1955: c s.6-A(1), Second proviso - Confiscation of essential commodity - Offending vehicle seized - Release of vehicle - Fine - Held: Measure of fine in lieu of confiscation would be relatable to market price of vehicle and not of seized essential commodity - Matter remitted to High Court for D decision afresh. In a case of contravention of clause 8 of Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 read with Kerosene Control (Registration on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, E 1993, 42 liters of Kerosene and the vehicle (a bus) were seized. The Collector directed confiscation of the vehicle in terms of s.6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, in view of the second proviso to s.6-A(1) of the Act, the Collector directed the owner of the vehicle to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The plea of the owner of the vehicle F that in view of the second proviso to s.6-A(1) of the Act, the fine imposed in lieu of confiscation could not exceed the market price of the essential commodity seized, found favour with the High Court. G In the appeal filed on behalf of the State, it was -~ contended for the appellants that the High Court erred in not keeping in view the true scope and ambit of the second proviso to s.6-A(1) of the Act. 957 H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD:This Court has held that the measure of fine which is required to be levied in lieu of confiscation under 8 the second proviso to s.6-A(1) of Esential Commodities Act, 1955 would be relatable to the market price of the vehicle and not of the seized essential commodity. The High Court does not appear to have considered the scope and ambit of the second proviso of s.6-A(1) of the Act in its proper perspective. The High Court would C accordingly consider the matter afresh. [Para 7, 9 and 10] (964-C-D-F-G] Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District v. Rudolph Fernandes (2000) 3 SCC 306 and Shambhu Dayal 0 AgarNala v. State of W.B (1990) 3 sec 569, relied on. E Case Law Reference: (2003) 3 sec 306 (1190) 3 sec 569 relied on relied on para 7 para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 755 of 2009. From the Order and Judgment dated 24.7.2006 of the High F Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C)No. 9459 of 2006. G Sibo Sankar Mishra for the Appellants. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court setting aside part of the order imposing fine in lieu of confiscation and directing the Collector, Ganjam to pass orders under second proviso to H Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short COLLECTOR OF GANJAM AND ANR. v. RAMESH 959 CHANDER.PADHI [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] the 'Act'). The writ petition was filed against the order dated A --+--- 29.5.2006 of Collector, Ganjam in a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act. 3. Facts leading to initiation of the aforesaid case is that on 21.12.2004 while the Marketing Inspector, Jaganathprasad B Block, while following the Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar during tour to Jaganathprasad Block, found one bus bearing registration No.OIG-185 parked at the Bus Stand and kerosene oil was being poured in the oil tank of the bus. Looking at them, both the driver and the conductor of the vehicle fled away. He c drained out the kerosene oil from the oil tank of the bus which contained 42 liters of kerosene, and prepared the sample list by taking 2 liters out of the seized kerosene oil for its chemical examination. The bus as well as kerosene were seized and a proceeding bearing EME No.37 of 2004 was initiated against D the respondent and another under Section 6-A of the Act. The ... proceeding was initiated for contravention of Clause 8 of Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 read with Clause 3 of Kerosene Control (Restriction on use and Fixation of Ceiling Price), 1993. In the said proceeding, the respondent who is the owner of the bus filed an application for release of the vehicle. E While deciding the aforesaid application, the Collector concluded the proceeding under Section 6-A of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.