Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) THE petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship firm, which is owned and run by the petitioner no. 2, who in the year 1994 was issued a letter of intent by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for distribution of L.P.G. Cylinders, for which necessary licence was also granted by the Explosive Department for gas go-down for the for the purpose of storage of L.P.G. Cylinder.
(2.) THE present writ petition challenges the order dated 21.11.08 passed by the District Magistrate, wherein the prayer of unsealing the go-down and release of cylinders has been rejected. In short, the facts are that on 17.9.08, the District Magistrate, Ambedkarnagar visited the go-down of the petitioner at 5:30 p.m. and as per the allegations, even without there being any search warrant, seized the go-down, that too in the absence of any order in writing. On 18.9.08, a three member inspecting team headed by the Tehsildar, Akbarpur again visited the go-down and thereafter prepared the seizure memo (Fard Baramadgi) of the empty and filled cylinder. Soon thereafter on 19.9.08 an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner no. 2 and against the go-down keeper under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The District Magistrate also wrote a letter to the Corporation mentioning therein that due to various irregularities, go-down of the petitioner has been seized. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, preferred Writ Petition No. 8818 (MB) of 2008, challenging the seizure and sealing of the go-down. The seizure memo was dated 18.9.08.
(3.) IN the said writ petition, the petitioners specifically pleaded that the stock of L.P.G. Cylinders as was found in the go-down and as was mentioned in Fard Supurdgi (seizure memo) tally with the entries made in stock register except that the shortage of one cylinder was found, which was explained by the petitioners saying that the same was kept in the showroom for the purpose of exhibiting it to the customers, therefore, the seizure and sealing of the go-down was per se illegal and arbitrary. Since the respondents raised a dispute regarding the aforesaid facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, wherein extracts of the stock register were also filed, record was summoned by this Court.;