- (1.) THE respondents were the writ petitioners before the High Court raising a common point as to the liability of transport contractor or a carrier in the event of confiscation of the vehi ¬cles for violation of the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980. The writ petitions were accepted by the High Court, aggrieved against which the appellants are before us by grant of special leave.
(2.) HEARD the counsel for the appellant State of A.P. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court that in the absence of violation of Section 3 of the Essential Commod ¬ities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act ), question of application of Section 6 -A did not arise, is correct. Under Section 6 -A first target is the confiscation of the commodity. If the commodity, as in the present case, is not liable to be confiscated, the ques ¬tion of confiscation of vehicles or container did not arise. The order of the High Court does not call for any interference.
(3.) THE appeals are dismissed accordingly. Appeals dismissed.;