:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.66206/2012 (GM-RES )
BETWEEN:
M/s. Metrani Agencies,
Indian Gas Distributors,
Shinthri Colony,
Nippani Town,
Belgaum District,
By its Proprietor,
Shri Janeshwar Tukaram Metrani.
…PETITIONERS
(By Sri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner (Food),
Belgaum District, Belgaum.
2. The Deputy Director of Food and
Civil Supplies,
Belgaum District, Belgaum.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Chikkodi Sub-Division,
Chikkodi, Belgaum District.
:2:
4. The Deputy Tahsildar,
Chikkodi Taluk,
Belgaum District.
5. The Area Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation,
(LPG Division),
RPD Cross, Kanapur Road,
Belgaum.
6. The Police Inspector,
Shri Basaveshwara Police Station,
Nippani.
7. Chief Manager (LPG-S),
Indian Oil Bhavan No.29,
P. Kalingarao Road (Mission Road),
Bangalore – 560027.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. P.H. Gotkhindi, HCGP for R1 to R4 & R6,
Sri. C.V. Angadi, Advocate for R5; R7 is served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. , praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated
by the 3rd Respondent through his letter dated 23.04.2012
addressed to the 5th Respondent at Annexure-E, etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of certiorari or
:3:
order to quash the entire proceedings initiated by the 3rd
Respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Sub-
Division, Chikkodi, Belgaum District, vide his letter dated
23.04.2012 produced at Annexure-E; to quash the
communication/order dated 25.04.2012 issued by the 2nd
Respondent-Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies,
Belgaum District, Belgaum (Annexure-K); to quash the
Criminal proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional police
in Crime No.26/2012 dated 24.04.2012 as per Annexure-
J and to quash the communication issued by the 7th
Respondent-Chief Manager, LPG-S, Indian Oil Bhavan,
Bangalore, dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure-N) suspending
the distributorship of the petitioner, who is an
authorized distributor of Indian Oil Corporation, dealing
with domestic and commercial Liquefied Petroleum Gas in
Nippani.
2) The 3rd Respondent-Assistant Commissioner,
Chikkodi sub-Division, Chikkodi, who is the authorized
officer under the Essential Commodities Act, conducted
:4:
inspection of the petitioner’s shop premises at about 12.00
noon on 23.04.2012 and noticed several contraventions of
the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of
Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (for short, ‘Order
2000’ ) issued under Essential Commodities Act. After
noticing several violations and contraventions under the
aforesaid Order, the Assistant Commissioner sent a
communication dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure-E) to the
Area Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., LPG
Division, Belgaum, to take suitable action for cancelling
the agency. On receipt of the said letter, the Area
Manager of Indian Oil Corporation, Belgaum, issued a
showcause notice to the petitioner calling upon the
petitioner to submit its explanation within two days as
per (Annexure-F). On receipt of Annexure-F, the
petitioner submitted its explanation as per Annexure-G
dated 27.04.2012. Subsequently, by order dated
02.05.2012 (Annexure-N), the Chief Manager, Indian Oil
Corporation Limited ordered suspension of distributorship
granted to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, at about
:5:
11.45 am. on 24.04.2012, the Deputy Tahsildar, (Food),
Chikkodi, along with the Village Accountant, Nippani and
others visited the LPG Gas Cylinders Distribution Center
of the petitioner in Nippani and conducted search of the
premises and found violation of several provisions of the
aforesaid Order 2000. He also noticed difference in the
quantity of actual stock and the LPG Cylinders found in
the stock register. Therefore, the Tahsildar seized all
those articles such as Gas Cylinders, both domestic and
non-domestic and since they were found to be highly
inflammable and explosive, stored them in the said
premises as he could not immediately find an alternative
place, where those Gas Cylinders could be safely stored
and sealed the premises. Thereafter, the Deputy Tahsildar
submitted a report to the PSI, Sri Basaveshwara Police
Station, Nippani, as per Annexure-H, based on which, the
Police registered the case in Crime No.26/2012 for
violation of Section–3 punishable under Section-7 of the
Essential Commodities Act,1955 and submitted the FIR to
the jurisdictional Magistrate under Annexure-J.
:6:
Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Sub-
Division, issued a showcause notice as per Annexure-P
dated 14.05.2012 calling upon the petitioner to showcase
as to why the Distributorship granted to the petitioner
should not be cancelled for committing violation in
contravention of the various provisions of the Order, 2000.
The petitioner on receipt of the showcause notice appears
to have filed his explanation as per Annexure-Q on
19.05.2012. The proceedings in that regard are still
pending before the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by
the order of the Chief Maanger, Indian Oil Corporation
Limited, suspending the distributorship, aggrieved by the
seizure of the Gas Cylinders and shop premises by the
Deputy Tahsildar and complaining that in spite of
submitting the explanation, the Assistant Commissioner
has not passed necessary orders in the proceedings
initiated by him, the petitioner has presented this petition
seeking the reliefs as noticed supra.
3) Upon service of notice, the learned Government
Advocate appearing for Respondents-1 to 4 & 6 has filed
:7:
the detailed statement of objections and also additional
statements. Respondents- 5 & 7, the Area Manager as
well as the Chief Manager, respectively of Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, are represented by their learned
counsel. However, they have not filed any statement of
objections.
4) I have heard Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Gotkhindi,
Government Advocate appearing for Respondents-1 to 4 &
6 and Sri. C.V. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for
Respondents- 5 & 7.
5) The principal contention urged by Sri.
Jagadeesh Patil is that, the Deputy Tahsildar has no
power or authority or jurisdiction to conduct any search
and seizure as per the Order, 2000 or under the Essential
Commodities Act, 1995. Therefore, seizure of the Gas
Cylinders and other equipments as also the premises is
without jurisdiction. He further contended that the
registration of the criminal case on the basis of search
:8:
and seizure effected by the Deputy Tahsildar is also
without any jurisdiction. It is his further contention that,
though the petitioner has submitted its valid explanations
to the Respondents- 5 & 7, without considering the
explanation, Respondent No.7 has passed an order
keeping the distributorship of the petitioner under
suspension, as such, the said order is bad in law. He
further contended that though more than five months
have been elapsed from the date of submitting the
explanation to the showcause notice issued by the
Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner has
not passed any order thereof and on account of these acts
by the respondents, the petitioner is prevented from
carrying on his business and thereby it has affected his
livelihood.
6) Per contra, Sri. P.H. Gotkhindi, learned
Government Advocate contended that as per the official
memorandum issued by the Commissioner of Food and
Civil Supplies, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore,
:9:
dated 01.04.1998, even the Taluk Shirastedars, who are
generally termed as Deputy Tahsildars are also designated
as Inspectors of Food and Civil Supplies and they are
competent to conduct search and seizure as per the
aforesaid Order 2000, therefore, the search and seizure
effected by the Deputy Tahsildar as well as initiation of
criminal prosecution on the basis of the report of the
Deputy Tahsildar is in accordance with law, as such, there
are no reasons for quashing those orders. He further
contended that since the Deputy Tahsildar at the time of
seizure of the Gas Cylinders could not immediately find
an alternative premises for shifting the seized Gas
Cylinders, which are highly inflammable and explosive in
nature, to keep them in safe place, has kept them in the
said premises of the petitioner and has sealed the
premises and immediately on finding an alternative place,
the seized articles would be removed from the said
premises and the sealing of the premises would be
released. He further contended that the necessary
direction may be issued to the Assistant Commissioner to
: 10 :
pass appropriate orders on the showcause notice already
issued. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
7) Sri. C.V. Angadi, learned counsel for
Respondents-5 & 7 endorsed the argument of Sri.
Gotkhindi and sought dismissal of the petition.
8) I have bestowed my anxious considerations to
the submissions made by the learned counsel on both
sides.
9) As could be seen from the official memorandum
dated 01.04.1998 issued by the Commissioner of Food
and Civil Supplies in Karnataka, Bangalore, a copy of
which is produced along with the additional statements of
objections filed by the learned Government Advocate, it is
clear that Taluka Shirastedars, I and II Grade Food and
Civil Supplies Inspectors working in Bangalore, in formal
areas/Districts and other informal rationing areas and
the Taluks/Districts are empowered to ensure
implementation of the provisions of various control orders
: 11 :
listed in Anneuxre-2 therein as enforcing officer. The
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and
Distribution) Order 1993 , which was repealed by Order
2000, is one of the orders enumerated in Annexure-2
attached to the Official Memorandum. Therefore, from the
above it is manifestly clear that the Taluka Shirastedar,
who is generally termed as Deputy Tahsildar, is an
enforcing officer to ensure implementation of the
provisions of various control orders including the Order
2000. Regulation-13 of the Order 2000 deals with the
power of entries, search and seizure, which reads as
under:-
13. Power of entry, search and seizure:
(1) Any Officer of the Central or the State
Government not below the rank of inspector
duly authorised by a general or a special order,
by the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be or any officer
of a Government Oil Company not below the
rank of Sales Officer, authorised by the Central
Government, may, with a view to securing due
: 12 :
compliance of this order or any other order
made thereunder:
a) Stop and search any vessel or vehicle
used or capable of being used for the
transport or storage of any petroleum
product.
a) Enter and search any place,
b) Seize stocks of liquefied petroleum gas
along with container and/or
equipments, such as cylinders, gas
cylinder valves, pressure regulators
and seals in respect of which he has
reason to believe that a contravention
of the Order has been, or is being, or
is about to be made.
2) The sales officer of a Government Oil
Company shall be authorised to secure
compliance of this order by the distributors
appointed under the public distribution system
and or by the consumer registered by them.
10) Reading of the aforesaid Regulation makes it
clear that the officer mentioned therein is empowered to,-
i) Stop and search any vessel or vehicle used
or capable of being used for transportation
or storage of any petroleum product;
ii) To enter and search any place;
: 13 :
iii) Seize stocks of liquefied petroleum gas
along with container and/or equipments.
Clause (c) further describes the containers and/or
equipments that could be seized as cylinders, gas cylinder
valves, pressure regulators and seals. Those articles can
be seized if the officer concerned has reason to believe
that a contravention of this Order has been, or is being,
or is about to be made.
11) Thus, from the above it is further clear that
though the officer concerned has power to enter and
search any place and also seize any article which he has
reason to believe that a contravention is being made, the
said Regulation does not empower the officer to seal any
premises. Therefore, though the seizure of gas cylinders
etc. carried on by the Deputy Tahsildar is in accordance
with the power under Regulation-13 of the Order 2000, in
my opinion, sealing of the premises is without any
jurisdiction or authority. If the Deputy Tahsildar, was of
the opinion that the gas cylinders etc. enumerated in
Clause (c) of Regulation 13(1) were being used for
: 14 :
contravention of any orders, it is open for him to seize
those articles. However, he had no authority to seal the
premises. Therefore, the act of sealing the premises by
the Deputy Tahsildar, in my opinion, as rightly contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was without any
authority of law, as such, the same will have to be
quashed. The Deputy Tahsildar is under an obligation to
remove all the sealed and seized articles from the premises
and release the premises from the seal so as to enable the
petitioner to make use of the premises for any other
purposes of his choice. The Deputy Tahsildar is required
to comply with this order within a limited period.
12) In view of the fact that the Deputy Tahsildar is
empowered to conduct search and seizure and he being an
enforcing officer to ensure implementation of any of the
orders enumerated under the Official Memorandum, the
report lodged by him to the jurisdictional police reporting
contravention of the provisions of the essential
commodities Act cannot be held as without jurisdiction.
: 15 :
Therefore, the registration of the case by the jurisdictional
police based on the report submitted by the deputy
Tahsildar is in accordance with law and no fault can be
found with.
13) Having regard to the allegations made in the
report of the Deputy Tahsildar, based on the search
conducted by him, I find no material at this stage to quash
the criminal case registered by the police or the
investigation thereof. The jurisdictional police are at
liberty to proceed with the investigation and file
appropriate report thereon.
14) As noticed supra, the showcause notice was
issued to the petitioner by the Indian Oil Corporation, to
which the petitioner submitted his explanation and
thereafter in order to safeguard the interest of the
customers attached to the petitioner’s distributorship, the
distributorship of the petitioner is kept under suspension.
: 16 :
15) Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, at this stage, I find no ground to quash the
order passed by the 7th respondent suspending the
distributorship of the petitioner.
16) The Assistant Commissioner, who initiated the
proceedings by issuing showcause notice is under an
obligation to pass necessary orders after the petitioner
filed his explanation. It is noticed that though the
explanation has been submitted by the petitioner on
19.05.2012, till today, the Assistant Commissioner has
not passed appropriate orders. Therefore, it is necessary
to issue direction to the Assistant Commissioner to pass
appropriate orders with a time frame.
17) In view of the above discussions, the petition is
allowed-in-part. The Deputy Tahsildar-Respondent No.4
is hereby directed to remove all the seized articles from the
premises in question within 15 days from today and
release the premises from sealing and hand it over to the
petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Sub-
: 17 :
Division, Chikkodi, is directed to pass necessary orders in
the proceedings initiated by him in SUP/V.VA/22/2012-
13 (Annexure-E) within a period of one month from today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
KGR*
