Judgment:
Ramakrishna, C. J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order made by the learned single Judge of this Court disposing of Civil Rule No. 4209 of 1995, dated 18th June, 1997. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no merit in the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner presented this appeal, challenging the correctness and legality of the order of the learned single Judge, under appeal, for the grounds taken therein.
2. The appellant and his counsel are absent. However, since the appeal is required to be dealt with in regard to a small question of law, we have heard Mr. A.M. Bujar Barua, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondents, along with Ms. I. Bora, learned counsel, and we propose to dispose of this appeal as follows :--
3. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows : --
The Assam Rajyik Kerosene Feriwalla Santha. said to be registered under Registration No. 1621, with its head office at Morikalong, Nagaon Town, district Nagaon, represented by its General Secretary, Md. Abdus Salam, the writ petitioner, averred in the writ petition that the petitioner-society has been espousing the cause and interest of the street hawkers of kerosene oil operating throughout the length and breadth of Assam and also for protection of the rights and interest of its members. Its General Secretary, Md. Abdus Salam, has been authorised to present this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the society.
4. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition it is alleged that there is an action taken by the Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Nagaon (respondent No. 3 herein) unilaterally by an order made on 6-9-95, by which all the hawkers of kerosene oil in the district of Nagaon had been directed to obtain dealing licence under the provision of Clause 2(a) of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, 1982), which is, according to the petitioner, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order, 1982), that order having been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon.
5. The society in question, consisting of young and poor persons, practically having no education and earning their livelihood from the meagre income by distributing kerosene oil to the customers. They used to get their daily quota of kerosene oil in the range of 50 litres to 200 litres, which they used to procure from the Kerosene Oil Depot or the Gaon Panchayat Samabay Samiti, under orders from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) or his Subordinate Officers, without obtaining any licence. Since by virtue of the order made by the Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Nagaon, dated 6th September, 1995, they were called upon to obtain licence to deal with kerosene oil, hence the petitioner has sought for the following prayer:--
Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order made by the Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies, dated 6-9-95, in proceedings No. NSG 91/94/146, dated 6-9-95 (Annexure-I) and another order bearing No. HJSK. 29/95/76-A, dated 8-9-95 (Annexure-III).
The petitioner has also sought for interim
relief pending consideration of the main writ
petition.
6. The learned single Judge, after hearing learned counsel on both sides held in the course of his order that licence is required for blue dyed kerosene oil as it is controlled and meant for public distribution system. In the course of the order it is made clear that there is no need for the petitioner for obtaining a licence for doing business in white S. K. oil, but to enable him to do business in blue dyed kerosene oil a licence is necessary in accordance with the law. Not being satisfied with the reason and the direction, the petitioner-appellant has presented this appeal for the grounds taken therein.
7. In the absence of the counsel for the appellant, we have gone through the grounds taken in the appeal at pages 15-16. It is seen therefrom that the observation of the learned single Judge that the writ petitioners shall not be entitled to do business in blue dyed kerosene oil, is not correct.
(2) The learned single Judge went beyond his jurisdiction when he considered and issued a direction dealing with blue dyed kerosene oil.
(3) As there was no prayer in regard to mis direction, the learned single Judge ought to have confined to the prayer put forward in the writ petition to record his finding with the reasons.
8. We have heard Mr. A.M. Bujar Barua, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
9. Although the learned single Judge dealing with the prayer of the writ petition has not referred to the relevant provisions of the law with a view to record appropriate findings, we, in the appeal, considered the same.
10. At the outset it is seen that by virtue of the provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is abundantly made clear that the Central Government, with a view to maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity, or securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. The phrase 'essential commodity' has been defined under Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act, meaning thereby :--
(i) .............
(viii) petroleum and petroleum products;
...................................
as one of the essential commodities. It is further seen that Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides as follows ;--
'Without prejudice to the generality of the
powers conferred by Sub-section (1), an order
made thereunder may provide--
(a) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of any essential commodity;
(b)..................
(c) ..................
(d) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of, any essential commodity...............................'
11. Therefore, by virtue of the provision of
these laws, it is made clear that kerosene oil,
being a product of petroleum, coming within the
purview of Section 3 of the Act, the State
Government have accordingly enacted laws,
(known as the Assam Public Distribution of
Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as
the Order, 1982) by virtue of the powers
conferred upon them under Section 3 of the Act.
It is seen therefrom that entry 4 in Sub-clause
(b) of Clause 2 of the Order deals with Kerosene
oil? By virtue of the powers conferred under
Section 3 of the Act, the Assam Government,
with a view to control public distribution system
in notified articles in the State, made this order,
1982. Clause' 3 of the Order provides as
follows :--
'The Licensing Authority may issue licences in Form I to such appointed dealers as may be considered necessary from time to time specifying sub-whole salers or retailersand areas of operation of each of such appointed dealers.'
12. In other words, by virtue of the provision of Clause 3 of the Order, it is made clear that in the State of Assam the authorities intended to control the public distribution system in kerosene oil by issuance of licences.
13. As a matter of fact, Clause 4 of the Order, 1982, lays down as follows :--
'The Licensing Authority may, with a view to regulate supply of notified articles, issue to every head of a family, a Family Identity Card in Form II on payment of a fee of rupee two and paise ten only specifying the name of the appointed dealer from whom he may obtain his quota of notified articles.'
14. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing, the State of Assam intended to control the public distribution system in kerosene oil by issuance of licences to the dealers -- either wholesalers or retailers.
15. There is one more aspect, which we have got to notice, in addition to the above questions of the laws, made both by the Parliament and the State of Assam. The Central Government issued a Notification, G.S.R. 584 (E), dated 2nd September, 1993, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act, known as the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, 1993). Clause 8 of the Order deals with kerosene oil under public distribution system to be made distinguishable. It is stated therein that kerosene supplied through public distribution system shall be made distinguishable from the kerosene to be imported, sold or distributed under parallel marketing system by use of suitable measures to be adopted by the Government Oil Companies as and when necessary. In other words, apart from the kerosene oil which is to be supplied through public distribution system being made distinguishable by the Government Oil Companies as and when necessary from the kerosene that is to be imported to India, one thing is clear that use of kerosene oil not only is being controlled for the purpose of supplying under public distribution system, but restrictions have also been imposed for the purpose of fixation of selling price of kerosene supplied through the public distribution system.
16. In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that though the learned single Judge did not deal with each and every ground taken by the writ petitioner in order to record a finding, we have dealt with these questions in the appeal. We are of the opinion that merely because the writ petitioner is a registered society, it cannot claim exemption to deal with kerosene oil under public distribution system without a valid licence. Therefore, the prayer to quash the order of the Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies, referred to in the writ petition, is not tenable. Therefore, the view taken by the learned single Judge in rejecting the prayer must be held to be correct.
17. For the above reasons, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal.
18. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.