- (1.) The petitioner-firm owns an oil mill producing edible oils and it holds a retail and wholesale licence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982 for purchase, sale and storage of edible oils and oil-seeds. The business premises was inspected and searched by the 2nd respondent on 9-5-1995 and a panchanama was prepared wherein contravention of Clause 11 (iii) of the said Control Order and Clause 4 of the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 were alleged stating that the storage limits were exceeded. Contravention of conditions of licence under the first mentioned Control Order was also alleged. Inter alia, it is mentioned in the panchanama that there were stock variations leading to the inference of incorrect maintenance of accounts, non-furnishing of returns in Form-C to the District Supply Officer and non-mentioning of the addresses of the purchasers in the bills. On these allegations, 19 Quintals of groundnut seeds, 8 Qtls. of groundnut oil, 110 Qtls. of groundnut-cake and 41 Qtls. of sunflower seeds were seized. A report was filed before the Joint Collector, Khammam who is the competent authority under Section 6-A read with Sec. 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act. Admittedly, the Joint Collector is seized of the matter.
(2.) The present writ petition is filed questioning the seizure and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and to issue a consequential direction to release the stocks. It is the contention of the petitioner's Counsel that there is no prima facie case at all against the petitioner and that the petitioner has a valid explanation for the alleged irregularities. But as an enquiry under Sec. 6-A is pending, it is not proper for tills Court to go into the merits and decide whether the explanation is tenable or not. At the same time, J find force in the contention of the learned Counsel that sunflower seeds are not edibile oil seeds falling within the meaning of 'scheduled commodity' under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 or coming within the purview of Pulses, Edible Oil-seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order,
(3.) The Supreme Court in Girdharmalvs. Dev Raj had an occasion to consider whether 'cotton seed' can be regarded as edible oil seed within the definition of 'food stuff under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative. It was observed: "Cotton seed is an oilseed but it cannot for a moment be suggested that it is fit for human consumption. So, clearly, it is not an oilseed which is edible. Mr, Aggarwala as a last resort argued that what 'edible oilseed' means is a seed from which edible oil can be prepared. Such an argument has only to be mentioned to deserve rejection. The phrase 'edible oil- seed' can never mean what the learned Counsel suggests and can and does mean only an oil seed which is edible as an oil-seed. Cotton-seed not being edible, falls outside the class of 'edible oil-seed' and so is not foodstuff within the meaning of Sec. 2 of the Ordinance or the Act of 1946." The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to sunflower oil seeds as well. Though sunflower seed is an oil seed, it cannot be treated as edible oil seed. Just like cotton seed, it is not meant to be consumed as a seed. It is to be remembered that these Control Orders were promulgated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the definition of 'essential commodity', 'foodstuffs including edible oil seeds and oils' is mentioned. Thus, the edible oil seeds contemplated by the aforementioned Control Orders are oil seeds which has the qualities or characteristics of 'food-stuffs'. If such oil-seeds are not fit for human consumption in the same form, the Supreme Court categorically held that they are not edible oil-seeds (emphasis supplied). We must, therefore accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner,;