MANISH OIL MILLS v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the aforesaid, it clearly appears that the commodities mentioned in the order have been made free and they are not subjected to any permit or licence. In view of it, respondent no. 2 is now directed to take appropriate decision in…
Judgment
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MANISH OIL MILLS - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KARTIK V PANDYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR HEMANG PARIKH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,2, 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA Date : 26/06/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner's goods were seized by respondents in the year
1987. Against the same, the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application SCA/4067/2007 JUDGMENT No. 4754 of 1987 before this Court. In the said proceedings this Court had directed the goods to be released upon the petitioner furnishing surety. In view of the said direction, the petitioner had withdrawn the said petition and the goods were released. In the said proceedings, later on the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application 1970 of 2004 for change of surety and this Court granted the permission for change of surety. It is the grievance of the petitioner that before the Collector i.e., respondent no. 2 the confiscation proceedings under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act in respect of the commodity in question i.e., edible oil were initiated way back in the year 1987, but till this date no decision is taken thereon.
I have heard Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hemang Parikh, Ld. AGP for the respondents. Mr. Parikh draws my attention to an order issued by the Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Gandhinagar, dated 11/12/2003 under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, which states that with the coming into effect of this order, any dealer may freely buy, stock, sell, transport, distribute, dispose, acquire, use or consume any quantity of wheat, paddy/rise, coarsegrains, sugar, edible oilseeds and edible oils and shall not require a permit or licence therefor under any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This order has to take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any order made by the State Government before the commencement of this order except as respects anything done or omitted to be SCA/4067/2007 JUDGMENT done, thereunder before such commencement. Copy of the said order is taken on record of the petition.
Operative part
In view of the aforesaid, it clearly appears that the commodities mentioned in the order have been made free and they are not subjected to any permit or licence. In view of it, respondent no. 2 is now directed to take appropriate decision in the proceedings of the petitioner on or before 31st July, 2007 and intimate the decision to the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. D S permitted. [ Akshay H Mehta, J. ] * Pansala.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Essential Commodities Act; Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.