S.S.CHADHA - (1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting question as to the scope, effect and purpose of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976.
(2.) M/s. Munshi Ram Ram Niwas through its sole proprietor Shri Ram Niwas, respondent No. 1 was carrying on his business in the market area known as Narela Mandi in the Union Territory of Delhi. He had obtained licences under 'categories 'A' and 'E' issued under Rule 12 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation General) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Those licences were issued by the Market Committee, Narela Mandi who is the competent authority for the purpose. Previously the grant of licences was governed by the Bombay Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1939 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. On the commencement of the Act, the said Bombay Act was repealed. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines "agricultural produce" means such produce (whether processed or not) of agricultural, horticulture, forest, animal husbandry, apiculture or pisciculture as are specified in the Schedule. Item IX of the Schedule reads. "Gur sugar, sugatcane, Khandsari, shakar and rashkat". Section 34 of the Act lays down the grant of licences subject to the Rules. A Market Committee may after making such inquiries as it deems fit. grant or renew a licence for the use of any place in the market area for the marketing of agricultural produce or for operating therein as a trader etc. in relation to the marketing of agricultural produce. Respondent No. 1 obtained the licence in form 'A' from the Market Committee. Narela Mandi for carrying on his business or marketing of agricultural produce (which includes khandsari).
(3.) In compliance with the order of A.C.P. (Special Cell) Crime Branch, Delhi, certain officers' of the Crime Branch visited on February 28, 1980 the premises of respondent No.1 at 2092, Narela Mandi. Delhi and carried out the physical verification of the stocks of different items held by him. The Crime Branch recovered khandsari 53 bags, khandsari (dust) 18 bags and Khandsari. sulphur 9 bags and two sample each from all the three varieties had been drawn in glass beetles and sealed. 80 bags of khandsari and khandsari sulphur were placed under the safe custody of a 'superdar'. Proceedings were initated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'E.C. Act') read with Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Older, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the E.G. Act. A notice under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act was issued to respondent No. 1 alleging a contravention of the Order and to show cause as. to why the aforesaid seized stocks should not be confiscated to State under the E.C. Act. Respondent No. 1 filed a reply to the show cause notice. The main contention raised by respondent No. 1 was that he was carrying on besiness in Narela Mandi under the authority of the licence granted under the Act and for that reason he was neither ever required to obtain licence? under the Order issued under the E.C. Act nor was a licence policy on khandsari ever introduced, pursued, applied or followed by the Delhi Administration. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 never dreamt nor even ever had in his imagination that he was violating any of the provisions of the Order and honestly and bonafidely believed that after obtaining the licences under Act, he was carrying on the business truthfully and honestly inasmuch as it is an admitted case that no unaccounted khandsari was found / recovered from the business premises of the petitioner on the date of the raid and that all purchase and sale entries were duly vouched and were accounted for i.e. entered into the account books and purchases made against vouchers.;