9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of orders dated 18-1-84 and 19-1-84 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash the orders dated 18-1-84 and 19-1-84 passed by the 2nd respondent concerning the seizure of rice being transported without a release certificate. The Dy. Commissioner's orders directed the rice to be taken for levy and public distribution without satisfying the requirements of S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner's counsel contended that the orders did not show the 2nd respondent's application of mind to the case and no notice was issued under S. 6B of the Act. The Dy. Commissioner's power under S. 6A of the Act allows for disposal of essential commodities under specific conditions. However, it is crucial that the Dy. Commissioner is satisfied about two aspects before ordering disposal: prima facie case under S. 6A and the necessity for disposal in the public interest. The satisfaction of these aspects is a condition precedent for a valid order. The judgment emphasized the importance of the Dy. Commissioner's application of mind to the facts and circumstances before directing disposal under S. 6A. The court noted that the orders were not sustainable due to the lack of satisfaction on the required aspects. However, since the rice had already been distributed, quashing the orders would serve no purpose. Instead, the Dy. Commissioner was directed to complete the proceeding under S. 6A of the Act promptly. The court allowed two months for the completion of the proceeding, as submitted by the learned H.C.G.P., and kept all contentions of the petitioner open. In conclusion, the court directed the Dy. Commissioner to complete the proceeding under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act within two months, despite the distributed rice, and left all petitioner contentions open for further consideration.
|
