P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) THE members of the petitioner association are wholesale dealers of kerosene, which is an essential commodity and its sale, purchase, storage, price fixation are under the control of the State Government. The State Government, while resorting to the provisions of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order 1980, decided to issue licences for carrying on wholesale business of kerosene and requisite licences were issued to the members of the petitioner association by the District Supply Officer, Sri Ganganagar. It was envisaged in the Control Order of 1980 that wholesaler is to receive kerosene from oil companies, namely Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum, Indian Oil Corporation etc and after receiving kerosene from these companies the wholesalers to distribute it to the retailers on the recommendation of District Supply Officer the requisite quantity fixed by it. The object of the Control Order of 1980 was to facilitate proper distribution of kerosene to the consumers by the retailers. The fixation of ceiling price of kerosene is regulated by the orders issued in this behalf by the Government from time to time. In exercise of powers conferred under the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1993, a Notification was issued by the State Government on 2nd of February 1994. The said notification was superseded by the Notification dated 01.12.1997, whereby wholesalers holding form No.XIII were allowed commission on kerosene at the rate of Rs.126 per kiloliter and Rs.83 per kiloliter who were not holding Form No.XIII. The notification dated 01.12.1997 was further followed by yet another notification dated 11.03.1998, whereby condition of Form No.XIII was done away. Precisely, while relying on the notification dated 11.03.1998, the petitioner association has averred in the writ petition that after issuance of the said notification all the wholesalers of kerosene are entitled to get commission at the rate of Rs.126 kiloliter. Subsequent to that, the impugned communication was issued on 12th of June 1998, whereby the wholesalers who were not holding Form No.XIII were directed to deposit the difference/excess of commission which they have claimed i.e. Rs.43 per kiloliter with the government, failing which proceedings shall be undertaken against them in accordance with Essential Commodities Act 1955.
(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abhinav Jain has urged that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order inasmuch as the commission of the wholesalers was fixed by the Central Government. Mr. Jain has argued that for enforcement of the commission in relation to essential commodities is to be made only by the District Supply Officer, and the Collector is having no jurisdiction to pass an order detriment to the interest of the members of the petitioner association. Mr. Jain has also attacked the impugned order on the anvil of Clause 25 of the Control Order of 1980. While taking shelter of the Notification dated 11th March 1998, learned counsel would contend that when the condition of holding Form No.XIII has been done away consciously by the State Government, how and in what manner the incumbents not holding Form No.XIII can be discriminated vis -a -vis wholesalers holding Form No.XIII. Thus, taking shelter of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel has argued that the impugned order is in clear negation of Article 14 and the same cannot be sustained. On behalf of the respondents reply to the writ petition is submitted and the impugned action is defended.
(3.) AFTER submission of reply, an additional affidavit in compliance of the order dated 10th of April 2000 passed by this Court is also submitted. In the additional affidavit serious attempt was made by the respondents to show that the wholesalers who are holders of Form No.XI are forming a different class from wholesalers who are not in possession of Form No.XIII. The complete text of Para 2 of the Additional Affidavit is reproduced as under: "2. That the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas issued an order on November 06, 1997 to all the Chief Secretaries of all the States of the country as well as the Union Territories, revising the rate of dealer's commission of kerosene, a copy whereof is submitted herewith and marked as Ex.R.1. It appears from the said order that when the said order was issued the current rate of dealer's commission of kerosene oil was Rs.52.70 per KL for wholesale agents and Rs.69/ - per KL retailers. After receiving the request from Dealer's Associations, Federations etc. the said rates were found inadequate and after making proper examination in detail by the committee of Marketing Directors of Oil Companies and Executive Director, OCC, the rates were revised and following rates were re -fixed : - JUDGEMENT_107_TLRAJ0_2014.htm In Para 7, the reasons were spelt out justifying the issuance of impugned order with clarity and precision. Para 7 of the Addl. Affidavit reads as under: 7. That it is also most humbly submitted that the order dated 12.06.1998, An.4, issued by the District Collector (Supply), Sriganganagar does not suffer from any kind of infirmity and the same is perfectly valid and reasonable order. In the said order the District Collector (supply) has directed the recovery of the difference of amount of Rs.43/ - per KL from the licensees/dealers who have received the commission @ Rs.126/ - per KL. In this regard it is again most humbly and respectfully submitted that the earlier proposed system with regard to Delivered Supply System was not implemented and the same was at the very outset abandoned. Thereafter new system as enumerated above was adopted for supply of kerosene directly from oil depot to the consumers doors. Even the persons having the licenses in Form -XIII were also never required to store the kerosene in their storage tank, if any and they also supplied the kerosene to the villages directly from the oil depot as per the directions given by the District Collector concerned. Therefore, the order passed by the District Collector for recovering the different amount, is wholly proper, justified and lawful. In these circumstances the same cannot be said to be against the public interest and against any public policy. ;