Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2015 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1737 - SUPREME COURTJurisdiction - competent authority to take disciplinary action either by cancellation or suspension of the licence of a S.K. Oil agent appointed in a district outside the Calcutta - date of effect of order of cancellation or suspension of licence in terms of Paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order - whether it will be effective on the date of passing of the said order or when the said order is communicated to the concerned party? HELD THAT:- The Control Order was brought into force on 26.6.1968 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clauses (d), (e), (h) and (j) of Sub-section 2 of that Section and Section 7(1) of the said Act and the Order No. 26(11)-Com.Genl/66, dated 18th June, 1966 feeling the necessity and expediency for proper maintenance of supplies and for securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of kerosene in West Bengal - the power conferred on the Director and the District Magistrate are different, for the Director is a higher authority and the rule clothes him with more authority. Needless to say, the said paragraph has to be read in juxtaposition with other paragraphs. It is clear from paragraph 5 that the Director alone is authorised to grant a licence to an agent whereas a dealer's licence can be granted either by the Director or by the District Magistrate. Sub-para 3 of Paragraph 5 of the Control Order is also indicative of the fact that the agent operates at a larger scale than the dealer. An agent can sell, supply or transfer kerosene to a dealer, holder of a permit or delivery order and no other person. If it is held that the order would become a nullity, it really does not serve the purpose of the Control Order. On the contrary, it frustrates it and, therefore, the interpretation placed by the High Court on Paragraph 9 in juxtaposition with Paragraph 10 to treat the order has null and void is neither correct nor sound. It is desirable that the authority shall pass an order within 30 days from the date of show cause. Be it noted that there are two contingencies when the show cause is issued for violation or when an order of suspension is passed. There can be no trace of doubt that the order will take effect from the date when it is served. The order, unless it is served, definitely neither the agent nor the dealer would suspend its activities or obey any order, for he has not been communicated. It is concluded that the High Court has erroneously interpreted Paragraph 9 and 10 of the Control Order and that is why it has arrived at an erroneous conclusion - appeal allowed.
|