SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/530596 |
Subject | Service |
Court | Orissa High Court |
Decided On | May-17-2006 |
Case Number | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003 |
Judge | S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J. |
Reported in | 2006(II)OLR40 |
Acts | Indian Explosives Act, 1884; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
Appellant | Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida |
Respondent | The Collector and ors. |
Appellant Advocate | P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; |
Respondent Advocate | Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K. |
Disposition | Writ petition allowed |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";
if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]- state financial corporations act, 1951 [63/1951]. section 29; [p.k. tripathy, a.k. parichha & n.prusty, jj] discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the orissa state financial corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the.....Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";
if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]orderm.m. das, j.1. the petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the collector, jajpur in misc. case no. 7 of 2003 under annexure-13 to the writ petition.2. the facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of lpg at jajpur town by the hindustan petroleum corporation limited (in short 'hpc ltd.'). he has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the indian explosives act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. after receiving the letter of appointment from the regional manager, hpc ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business.....Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]ORDERCode Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
M.M. Das, J.
1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
S.B. Roy, C.J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
8. I agree.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs the Collector and ors - Citation 530596 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '530596', 'acts' => 'Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12553 of 2003', 'appellant' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sri Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. the Collector and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. -- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951. Section 29; Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. Concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. Apart from that, the claim of the Orissa State Financial Corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. Procedure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liabilities to repay. The Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Agreement between the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by Orissa State Financial Corporation. By doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the Orissa State Financial Corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the Orissa State Financial Corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. [AIR 2002 Orissa 130 Overruled]. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => 'xxx xxx xxx', 'counselplain' => ' P.K. Nanda,; S.S. Ray, ; M.R. Parida,; ', 'counseldef' => ' Addl. Government Adv. for O.P. 1,; R.K. Patnaik,; M.B.K.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2006-05-17', 'deposition' => 'Writ petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' S.B. Roy, C.J. and; M.M. Das, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p></p><p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.</p><p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.</p><p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.</p><p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:</p><p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.</p><p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.</p><p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.</p><p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.</p><p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.</p><p>S.B. Roy, C.J.</p><p>8. I agree.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2006(II)OLR40', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Collector and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $args = array( (int) 0 => '530596', (int) 1 => 'sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/530596/sri-akshaya-kumar-parida-vs-collector' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>', (int) 1 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.<p>1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bharat Gas for Jajpur Road, was permitted to open an extension counter in Jajpur Town by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'BPC Ltd.') under the letter dated 19.5.1993 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According tp the petitioner, after the petitioner commenced his distributorship in Jajpur Town, the said M/s. Devi Gas-opp. party No. 6 was required to close down its extension counter and hand over the existing customers of Jajpur Town to the present petitioner. The said M/s. Devi Gas having not done so, the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. intimated the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to issue suitable instruction to the said M/s. Devi Gas to comply with the guidelines and transfer the customers to the present petitioner. The Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated 17.9.2001 intimated the Chairman of Petroleum Companies directing them to ensure that all the extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorship must be closed down immediately, irrespective of the fact that the same have been opened with the concurrence of the management of the concerned companies. It was further directed that on such closure of the extension counters, the customers who were being served by such counters should be transferred immediately to the newly commissioned distributorship of the respective areas (Annexure-5). By letter dated 20.12.2002, the Civil Supplies Officer, Jajpur also passed an order directing opp. party No. 6 to close down the extension counter. The petitioner alleges that the said M/s. Devi Gas by setting up some persons filed W.P.(C) No. 685 of 2003 before this Court alleging that even though the petitioners in the said writ petition are consumers of LP Gas under the BPC Ltd. at Jajpur Town but M/s. Devi Gas is refusing to supply such Gas to them and is asking them to get their consumer cards transferred to M/s. Ganapati Gas (present petitioner) which is a new distributor of LP Gas.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an innocuous order dated 24.4.2003 directing the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur to dispose of the representation dated 30.12.2004 of the petitioners in the said writ petition, if the said representation has not yet been disposed of.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. On receiving the said order of this Court, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur registered Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, by an elaborate order dated 10.6.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, directed as follows:', (int) 5 => '<p>xxx xxx xxxKeeping all the factors in view, I do hereby order that the BPCL proprietor Devi Gas is to retain only 600 consumers in Jajpur town and its periphery and transfer the remaining around 1000 consumers to Ganapati Gas, the local distributor of HPCL within a period of one month. The petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble High Court are allowed to remain as Consumers of the Devi Gas in addition to other consumers limiting to 600.', (int) 6 => '<p>Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.6.2003 of the Collector, Jajpur, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for appropriate relief.', (int) 7 => '<p>5. On perusal of the decision/direction of the Government of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, we find that as per the policy of the Government of India, wherever new LPG distributorship is opened, extension counters functioning in the said areas are required to be closed down and the consumers are to be transferred to the newly opened distributorship.', (int) 8 => '<p>6. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG for Jajpur Town, the extension counter opened by opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas should have been closed by now by transferring the consumers to get their service and supply of LPG from the petitioner. We, therefore, find that the direction of the Collector, Jajpur given in his order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as quoted above, is not in conformity with the policy decision of the Government of India. We, therefore, quash the order dated 10.6.2003 under Annexure-13 and direct the Collector, Jajpur-opp. party No. 1 to take effective steps so as to transfer the consumers availing their service of supply of LP Gas from opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas to the petitioner's distributorship and further to take effective steps, so that opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas stops its operation for the area for which the petitioner has been appointed as a distributor of LPG. We further direct that the opp. party No. 2-HPC Ltd. to see that sufficient Gas Cylinders are allotted to the petitioner for meeting the demand of all the consumers of Jajpur Town.', (int) 9 => '<p>7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.', (int) 10 => '<p>S.B. Roy, C.J.', (int) 11 => '<p>8. I agree.<p>', (int) 12 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109