Judgment:
L. Rath, J.
1. The relief sought for in this case is quashing of the cognizance taken against the petitioner Under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the allegation of having violated the provisions of the Orissa Pulses.Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers'(Licensing) Order, 1977 read with Clause 12(1)(b) of the said Order and Clause 3 of the Order. The allegation against the petitioner is that even though his licence under the control order had expired yet he was carrying on business as a licences under the control order. It is the submission of Mr. Naik. learned counsel for the petitioner, that on the self-same facts a confiscation proceeding had been started against the petitioner in respect of the goods seized from it, but that though the goods were directed to be confiscated by the competent authority, yet in appeal the order of confiscation was set aside. The facts leading to the confiscation were that admittedly the petitioner was a licencee under the control order with his place of business shown in the licence. His place of business however having been changed he applied for renewal of the licence in respect of some other place where he was carrying on business. During the pendency of the renewal application, his places of business were raided and the goods in question were seized and the confiscation proceeding was initiated against him alleging his having not a valid licence in his favour for carrying on business. The appellate authority Under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was of the view that no fault lay with the petitioner as he had applied for renewal of the licence and the authorities had not taken any decision regarding renewal or otherwise of his licence in respect of the places of business shown in the application for renewal. For such reason, the view was taken by the appellate authority that the petitioner had not committed any act which warranted confiscation proceeding to be taken against him. It is Mr. Naik's submission that since the very basis of the proceeding against the petitioner Under Section 4 of the Act, i. e. carrying on business in violation of the control order and without a licence was not true and was not upheld, further prosecution against him again on that count cannot lie. The submission appears to have much force. Reliance was placed by Mr. Naik on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 410 of 1985 (Walayati Ram and Anr. v. State) decided on January 21, 1987 where a criminal prosecution registered under the Act on the basis of the report of the inspector of Enforcement Branch of Civil Supplies was held as not maintainable since the very facts constituting the corpus of the offence had been inquired into by the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies Department who was of the opinion that no fault on the part of the person had been shown and that since the very basis of the complaint had been knocked down the criminal proceeding had lost all importance and was consequently quashed. Mr. Naik also places reliance on AIR 1991 SC 515 (Murarilal Jhunjhunwala v. State of Bihar and Ors.), a case arising out of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 framed under the Essential Commodities Act. In the case the dealer had been granted' licence in one year and had applied for licence in subsequent years by depositing and was carrying fees on business under the under the bona fide belief that he would be granted licence. His applications for licence had neitner been rejected not any defect in the same had been pointed out. A challenge being made to the prosecution on the ground that business was being carried on without obtaining licence, the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution holding the same to be not maintainable and instead directed for grant of licence. In coming to the conclusion, the Court held :
'Technically, the authorities may be justified in prosecuting the appellant for carrying on the business without obtaining the licence. But the facts of the case reveal that the appellant is not to be blamed. If there is anybody to be blamed in this case it is on the Licensing Authority who has failed to perform its statutory duties. The appellant has done all that he could do under the law. He has not been told at any time that he is required to do any thing more than that he has already done. For successive four years the Licensing Authority went on accepting the application for licence with the necessary licence fees, and at no time it denied the claim of the apppellant. Its silence seems to demonstrate the total lack of awareness to the rights of the appellant. To cover up its own inaction and lethargic attitude, it seems to have directed the prosecution of the appellant. The attitude of the Licensing Authority is beyond our comprehension. It is arbitary on the fact of it and unjustified in every aspect of it. We fail to understand why the appellant should be prosecuted when he on his part has done everything for obtaining the Licence. The appellant was legitimately entitled to the licence which has been unreasonably withheld from him. It would be indeed wrong on the part of the Licensing Authority to prosecute the appellant.
2. In the view of the matter, the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue and hence is quashed. The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed.