JERAM BHANJI Vs. COLLECTOR OF JUNAGADH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2146 of 1989. The appellant herein is dealer in ground -nut and is holding a licence under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. On 5 -1 -1987, the Mamlatdar visited his shop and found the opening stock in the shop as 15435 kgs. On verification, it was found that there were 17315 kgs and thus 1900 kgs. were in excess. On this discrepancy and also on other irregularities committed by the licence -holder, the collector of Junagadh confiscated 50 of the stock, i.e. 8667 kgs. by an order, which is at Exhibit 'A' to the Special Civil Application. On appeal, the Government confirmed the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, by rejecting the appeal, i.e. Annexure 'B' to the Special Civil Application. Aggrieved by the order at Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the Special Civil Application, the appellant projected Special Civil Application No. 2146 of 1989 and questioned the order of confiscation. The learned single Judge of our High Court, after narrating the irregularities, which are: (1) ground -nut stock in possession of the appellant was in excess of what was disclosed by the stock register maintained by the appellant; (2) the invoices pertaining to dated 12 -10 -1986, 21 -10 -1986, 5 -11 -1986, 8 -11 -1986, 10 -11 -1986, 19 -11 -1986, 17 -11 -1986, 17 -11 -1986, 18 -11 -1986, 21 -11 -1986, and 22 -12 -1986 did not contain the necessary details required to be shown in such invoices; (3) the bills under which the groundnuts were sold were not available with the licensed earlier; (4) the appellant was not entering the licence number of person to whom the groundnut was sold by him; and (5) that the appellant was not submitting returns as required by the provisions of the Order, observed:

(2.) . Mr. H. J. Nanavati, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the order of confiscation is harsh and it goes against the norms set up by this Court in various decisions, such as: Mis. Himalaya Industries v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1987 G.L.T. 93, Shah Devji Hiraji v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 1986 G.L.T. 158 and Mukesh Traders, Bhavnagar v.. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 1987 G.L.T. 301. Reading these decisions, it is clear that the learned Judges, who dealt with those cases, have clearly stated that the confiscation in those cases, on the facts circumstances of the particular case, is harsh and as such, they have reduced the quantum of confiscation of the article. Further, these are all cases, where a learned single Judge of our High Court, after the special Civil Application was filed against the orders of the administrative authorities, considered the question. In the present case, the appellant has come forward by way of Letters Patent Appeal. A learned single Judge of our High Court, on the facts and circumstances, has applied his mind and has observed which we have extracted above. Thus, it is clear that the irregularities committed by the appellant and also the the specific offence committed by the present appellant have been taken into account by the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge, on the facts and circumstances of the case, after applying his mind, found that the confiscation of 50% of the stock seized cannot be said to be unduly harsh. Thus, two administrative Authorities and a learned single Judge of our High Court, after applying their mind, found that confiscation of 50% of the stock seized is not harsh and it warrants on the facts and circumstances of the case. In such circumstances, it is not correct on our part to upset the order passed by the learned single Judge and also the two administrative Authorities. The facts narrated above clearly make out the irregularities committed by the appellant herein and the excess stock he was having on the date of inspection by Mamlatdar on 5 -1 -1987. Considering all these aspects of the case, we do not find any merits in this Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Notice is discharged.