Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.10.2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.
HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.1203 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 S.Chellaiah Chettiar Firm Rep.
By its Prop: S.S.Selvaraj 310, Main Road, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudy District.
Petitioner versus 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.
By its Exhibit-officio Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (G1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudy, Thoothukudy District.
Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records culminating in the passing of the impugned proceedings in A.Order (Permanent) No.200, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (G1) Department dated 21.11.2008 on the file of the fiRs.respondent herein to return 8,238 litres of blue kerosene or return its value together with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of seizure on 17.08.1994 till the date of payment of value.
For petitioner : Mr.P.Solomon Francis For Respondents : Mr.V.Dhanapalan, AGP ORDER
The petitioner is doing kerosene business and he is having his kerosene wholesale business outlets at Kovilpatti and Vilathikulam under the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973.
When the District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi inspected the kerosene wholesale point at Kovilpatti at about 8.00 p.m., on 18.08.1994, he found that there was 11,138 litres of kerosene.
As per the records, there should have been 2900 litres, but there was excess of 8238 litres of kerosene.
Hence, a show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was issued to the petitioner.
2.The petitioner gave his explanation for the said show cause notice stating that the petitioner was allotted 12000 litres of kerosene for Vilathikulam depot.
On 18.08.1994, the petitioner unloaded 4,000 litres of kerosene, but could not unload the remaining 8000 litres of kerosene since the valves got stuck.
Hence, the tanker lorry was taken to Kovilpatti to repair.
After repairing the same, balance 8000 litres of kerosene was unloaded at Kovilpatti.
3.The said explanation was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 22.06.1995 and also directed the officials to sell the excess kerosene seized from the petitioner through another wholesale kerosene Agent Dealer and the amount was credited to the account of the Government.
4.The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order to the fiRs.respondent under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The said appeal was rejected by the fiRs.respondent in A.Order (Permanent) No.200, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (G1) Department dated 21.11.2008.
5.The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 22.06.1995 passed by the second respondent and A.Order (Permanent) No.200, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (G1) Department dated 21.11.2008, passed by the fiRs.respondent.
6.The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner.
7.It is stated that there was no supply of 4000 litres of kerosene to Vilathikulam depot on 18.08.1994 and in fact, the Invoice No.058238 dated 19.08.1994 for 12000 litres of kerosene was sent to Vilathikulam depot.
But the petitioner created records in order to create the defence and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned ordeRs.8.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the Tanker Lorry which supplied kerosene to Vilathikulam depot on 18.08.1994 got repaired and since there was no facility to repair the Tanker Lorry, the balance 8000 litres of kerosene was unloaded at Kovilpatti itself.
Therefore, the finding of the authorities that there was excess of 8238 litires of kerosene at Kovilpatti depot has no basis.
10.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that an excess of 8238 litres of kerosene was found during the surprise inspection at 11.30 p.m., on 18.08.1994 by the District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi.
There was no supply to Vilathikulam depot on 18.08.1994 and the supply was only on 19.08.1994 under Invoice No.058238 for 12000 litres.
11.The learned Additional Government Pleader has further submitted that in respect of the said issue, a proceeding was initiated under Clause 23 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation) Order, 1973 by issuing show cause notice dated 26.12.1994.
Final order dated 22.06.1995 was passed by the second respondent forfeiting the security deposit of Rs.300/- from the security deposit of the petitioner.
The order dated 22.06.1995 of the second respondent was not challenged by the petitioner and the same attained finality.
For the aforesaid reasons, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
12.I have considered the submissions made on either side.
13.The order dated 15.12.1994 of the second respondent has stated that the Vilathikulam depot was supplied 12000 litres of kerosene by Invoice No.058238 dated 19.08.1994.
The relevant passage is as follows:- tpshj;jpFsk; og;nghtpw;F cz;ikapy; ,i;tha;!; vz; 058238 ehs; 19.8.94=d;go 120000 ypl;lh; kz;bdz;ii tug;bgw;Ws;sJ. ; 14.Likewise, the order passed by the fiRs.respondent in A.Order (Permanent) No.200, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (G1) Department dated 21.11.2008 also states that the Invoice was created by the petitioner to set up his defence.
The aforesaid finding is not assailed successfully by the petitioner.
15.
Originally, Invoice No.058238 was raised to Vilathikulam depot for supply of 12000 litres of kerosene only on 19.08.1994 and not on 18.08.1994 as stated by the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner is not able to explain about the excess stock of 8238 litres of kerosene that was found on 18.08.1994 at 11.30 p.m., during the surprise check.
16.
In those circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned ordeRs.Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, a proceeding under Clause 23 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation) Order, 1973, was initiated for the same allegation that there was an excess stock of 8238 litres of kerosene at Kovilpatti depot.
Ultimately, the punishment order dated 22.06.1995 was issued by the second respondent forfeiting the security deposit of Rs.300/- from the security deposit of the petitioner and the same was not questioned by the petitioner.
17.For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned ordeRs.Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.10.2013 jbm Index: Yes Internet: Yes To 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.
By its Exhibit-officio Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (G1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudy, Thoothukudy District.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J jbm W.P.No.1203 of 2008 21.10.2013