The Division Bench had directed the sale of seized kerosene under supervision, affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Delhi Court found the appellant had no legal custody as kerosene was handed to a third party custodian, thus dismissing the writ appeal against the lower forum's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.A.No.991 of 2013
Date: 10-07-2013
Between:
M/s. Golla Chenchaiah
… Appellant
1. The Government of A.P. rep. by its principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.A.No.991 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)
This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20-06-2013 in W.P.No.17119 of 2013 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retail kerosene dealer. On certain allegations, his dealership licence was suspended by respondent No.3-Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 02-08-2010. Subsequently, vide order dated 2010-2010 of respondent No.3, his dealership licence was cancelled invoking clause 28(1) of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and
Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. Questioning the same, he filed W.P.No.26889 of 2010 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 27-10-2010, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of cancellation of dealership dated 20-10-2010 on the ground that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to submit his detailed explanation and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within two weeks and on filing such explanation, respondent No.3 was directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing either to the petitioner or his counsel and pass appropriate order. It is further directed that the order of suspension of dealership dated 02-082010 will continue to be in force till passing of final order by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the said direction, petitioner filed W.A.No.116 of 2011 and a Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the writ appeal on 08-03-2011, directed to sell the entire quantity of kerosene under the supervision of respondent No.3 or his officials in accordance with law. The petitioner, being not satisfied with the order passed in the writ appeal, preferred S.L.P.No.10149 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, affirmed the direction issued by the Division Bench for sale of the entire quantity of kerosene under the supervision of respondent No.3, if already not sold, in terms of the order dated 08-03-2011 in W.A.No.116 of 2011.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 27-10-2010 in W.P.No.26889 of 2010, the petitioner was given opportunity and he has submitted his explanation, and after considering the same, respondent No.2 passed an order cancelling the dealership licence of the petitioner, which is said to be the subject matter of another writ petition before this Court.
4. So far as the direction of the Division Bench with regard to the sale of seized kerosene, as confirmed by the Supreme Court,
is concerned, respondent No.2-District Collector passed an order dated 07-06-2013 directing respondent No.3 to dispose of 11847 litres of Public Distribution System (PDS) kerosene, which is in his custody, under PDS in the month of June, 2013 under his personal supervision and to keep the realized amount into revenue deposit till further orders. On the same day, respondent No.2 passed another order laying down the norms, subject to which the PDS kerosene shall be distributed, wherein he directed respondent No.3 to ensure proper distribution of kerosene, which was stated to be available with Chandra Agencies,
S. Konda (which was taken possession from M/s. Golla Chenchaiah) under PDS to the fair price shop dealers/retailers, S. Konda in the month of June, 2013. Aggrieved by these two orders, petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to declare them as illegal and arbitrary on the ground that there is contradiction between the two orders passed by respondent No.2, as in the first order, he stated that the kerosene is in the custody of respondent No.3, whereas in the second order, he has observed that the kerosene is with Chandra Agencies, S. Konda. However, the petitioner asserted that the kerosene is still in the underground tank in his premises and that therefore, he may be permitted to retain the sale proceeds subject to his furnishing bank guarantee.
5. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration all the aspects, observed that as regards the alleged contradiction, the fact remains, the petitioner’s retail kerosene dealership licence continues to remain under suspension, and therefore, he cannot be deemed to be in legal custody of the seized kerosene. He further observed that apparently while seizing the stock from the petitioner’s premises, respondent No.3 appeared to have entrusted the kerosene to the custody of Chandra Agencies, S. Konda, and obviously, Chandra Agencies, S. Konda is the interim custodian
holding the stock on behalf of the legal custodian i.e., respondent No.3, and this aspect has no relevance at all because the purport of the order of the Division Bench, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, is that the seized kerosene must be disposed of under the personal supervision of respondent No.3. He further observed that irrespective of whoever may be in the custody of the kerosene, the direction given by the Division Bench will stand complied with, if respondent No.3 disposes of the kerosene in accordance with law. He ultimately held that respondent No.2 has given direction to respondent No.3 to dispose of the kerosene through the PDS, which is the proper method of disposal, as the cardholders would be the beneficiaries by such disposal. As regards the request of the petitioner to retain sale proceeds, the learned single Judge observed that such a request cannot be accepted because the petitioner’s licence continues to be under suspension and he cannot be permitted to have the sale proceeds. With the above observations, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition through the order dated 18-06-2013. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred the present writ appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant herein and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant herein mainly contends that by virtue of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 08-03-2011 in W.A.No.116 of 2011 directing sale of the entire quantity of kerosene that is lying with the appellant herein under the supervision of respondent No.3 or through his officials in accordance with law, the petitioner is entitled to sell the quantity of the kerosene in the presence of respondent No.3, but the orders of respondent No.2, as confirmed by the learned single Judge, are contrary to the said direction of the Division Bench. He, therefore, submits that the order of the learned single Judge needs
interference.
8. After hearing the learned counsel, we have directed the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to produce the relevant record, to ascertain whether the kerosene is lying in the custody of the petitioner-appellant herein. Accordingly, he produced the record including the relevant panchanama, a perusal of which clearly discloses that on 05-08-2010 itself, the custody of the kerosene seized from the petitioner was given to Chandra Agencies, S. Konda, by conducting proper panchanama. On the same day, the petitioner also gave a statement that the said kerosene was handed over to Chandra Agencies, S. Konda. Further the Chandra Agenceis, S. Konda also issued a receipt stating that respondent No.3 handed over 11847 litres of kerosene for safe custody. Therefore, it is clear that the kerosene seized from the petitioner was kept in the safe custody of Chandra Agencies, S. Konda by respondent No.3. But, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, either by the petitioner or by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, at the time of disposal of W.A.No.116 of 2011.
9. Therefore, in view of the fact that the kerosene was seized from the petitioner and handed over to Chandra Agencies, S. Konda for safe custody by conducting proper panchanama, we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be allowed to sell the kerosene. Furthermore, as it is the PDS kerosene, which has to be distributed to the ration card holders, respondent No.3-Tahsildar alone can sell it. Therefore, the only course open to the respondents to comply with the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is to sell the kerosene by respondent No.3.
10. In the above circumstances, we find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned single
Judge. There are no merits in this writ appeal.
11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No order as to costs.
N.V. RAMANA, J
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
Date:10-07-2013 YCR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to sell seized kerosene and retain proceeds when the license is suspended and custody was handed over to a third party.
Whether the orders directing disposal of seized kerosene under personal supervision of respondent No.3 were illegal or arbitrary.
Whether the direction to sell PDS kerosene must be complied with by the Tahsildar alone.
M/s. Golla Chenchaiah
Government of A.P. rep. by its principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department
Tahsildar
District Collector
N.V. Ramana
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
