Judgment · High Court · 2012

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petiti oner as well as Mr. B. Gogoi, learned G.A appearing for the State respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged certain orders issu ed by the respondents subsequent upon action initiated by the respondents again st the petitioner for alleged violation of the provisions of Clauses 10,15 and 1 7 of the Assam Trade Articles (L & C) Corder, 1982 as contained in the order dat ed 23.07.2002 issued by Inspector, F & C.S, BIEO, Assam, Guwahati. The aforesaid order directed seizure of Articles/Books of Account in respect of the petitione r’s business which included seizure of 4310 litres of H.S. Diesel and 3967 l itres of Motor Spirit on the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2002. The petitioner has challenged the subsequent order dated 29.11.2002 pass ed by the Deputy Commissioner which directed that the aforesaid H.P. Diesel an d Motor Spirit seized are to be disposed of at prevailing prices in presence o f B.K. Borgohain, Inspector of F & C.S BIEO, Assam, Guwahati. On the same day, the Deputy Commissioner, F & C.S, Dibrugarh had issued a show cause notice to th e petitioner as to why his licence shall not be cancelled and other legal action s shall not be taken for the alleged violations of the law in force. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notic e on 07.01.2003. The petitioner states that the authorities concerned never took any step for disposal of the seizure items mentioned above and since there wa s no restriction on running of his business of dealership of petrol and diesel , he submitted indemnity bond in respect of the aforesaid seized petroleum pro ducts. However, belatedly on 02.04.2004, the Deputy Commissioner informed the pe titioner that the aforesaid indemnity bond could not be accepted. The aforesaid letter dated 02.04.2004 rejecting the indemnity bond offered by the petitioner h as also been challenged herein. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.05.2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh directing the petitioner to deposit sale proc eeds of seized articles into the Government Treasury. The petitioner has challen ged it on the ground that since the petitioner has already furnished indemnity bond, depositing sale proceeds may not arise. This C ourt while admitting the petition and issuing Rule by the order dated 29.08.2005 , passed an interim order that in view of the fact that the petitioner had mortg aged his landed property in favour of the Government, until further orders, sale of seized petroleum products in question shall not be made by the respondents i n terms of the impugned order dated 02.04.2004. To-day, when the case was taken up for final disposal, it has been point ed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not f iled any affidavit-in-opposition till date. The petitioner has further pointed o ut that the authorities concerned have not taken any step in respect of the proc eedings initiated against the petitioner even though there is no such restraint order by this Court, except the sale of the seized articles. Perusal of the seizure order dated 23.07.2002 reveals that the aforesaid proceedings were initiated on the ground that the petitioner was found to have sold H.S.D & M.S without issuing cash memo contrary to the condition no.7 of the Licence granted to the dealer under the ATAO/1982, also the petitioner was foun d not to have displayed the Board of Price & Stocks of H.S.D & M.S correctly and also the petitioner did not maintain proper stock account of H.S.D & M.S. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid viol ation is technical in nature and does not involve a serious violation of law and the matter has been pending since 2002 without any steps taken by the responden ts, and as such prays that the matter to be put to an end now. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petition er. There was no stay of the aforesaid proceedings initiated against the petitio ner by the respondents and the respondents have also not approached this Court f or vacating the interim order passed by this Court preventing the sale of the se ized petroleum products. The petitioner had already submitted his indemnity bon d and has mortgaged his landed property in favour of the Government, and as such , as regards security, this Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient sec urity in respect of the seized articles by way of the aforesaid indemnity bond a nd mortgage, and such direction for sale of the seized materials of H.P Diesel a nd Motor Spirit may not be necessary. Accordingly, the order dated 29.11.2002 di recting sale and disposal of the H.P. Diesel and Motor Sprit and order dated 28. 05.2004 directing to deposit value of the same are set aside. Having regard to the nature of violation of law which is indicated in t he seizure list letter dated 23.07.2002, the respondents are at liberty to proc eed with the matter after taking into consideration the petitioner’s reply to t he show cause notice submitted on 07.01.2002 within one month from to-day. It is made clear that if the proceeding is not completed within a period of one month from to-day, the said proceeding shall be deemed to have been closed. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during this period the concerned authorities have not initiated any confiscation proceeding s or criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that at th is stage, any such confiscation proceedings or criminal proceedings in respect o f the allegations made against the petitioner may not be necessary. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the obser vations and directions issued above.