Vijayalakshmi Oil Company vs Joint Collector and Others

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—The petitioner-firm owns an oil mill producing edible oils and it holds a retail and wholesale licence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982 for purchase, sale and storage of edible oils and oil-seeds. The business premises was inspected and searched by the 2nd respondent on 9-5-1995 and a panchanama was prepared wherein contravention of Clause 11 (iii) of the said Control Order and Clause 4 of the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 were alleged stating that the storage limits were exceeded. Contravention of conditions of licence under the first mentioned Control Order was also alleged. Inter alia, it is mentioned in the, panchanama that there were stock variations leading to the inference of incorrect maintenance of accounts, non-furnishing of returns in Form-C to the District Supply Officer and non-mentioning of the addresses of the purchasers in the bills. On these allegations, 19Quintals of groundnut seeds, 8 Qtls. of groundnut oil, 110 Qtls. of groundnut-cake and 41 Qtls. of sunflower seeds were seized. A report was filed before the Joint Collector, Khammam who is the competent authority u/s 6A read with Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act. Admittedly, the Joint Collector is seized of the matter.

The present writ petition is filed questioning the seizure and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and to issue a consequential direction to release the stocks. It is the contention of the petitioner''s Counsel that there is no prima facie case at all against the petitioner and that the petitioner has a valid explanation for the alleged irregularities. But as an enquiry u/s 6A is pending, it is not proper for this Court to go into the merits and decide whether the explanation is tenable or not. At the same time, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel that sunflower seeds are not edibile oil seeds falling within the meaning of ''scheduled commodity'' under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 or coming within the purview of Pulses, Edible Oil-seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order.

The Supreme Court in Firm Girdhar Mal Kapur Chand Vs. Firm Dev Raj Madan Gopal, had an occasion to consider whether ''cotton seed'' can be regarded as edible oil seed within the definition of ''food stuff under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative. It was observed:

"Cotton seed is an oilseed but it cannot for a moment be suggested that it is fit for human consumption. So, clearly, it is not an oilseed which is edible. Mr. Aggarwala as a last resort argued that what ''edible oilseed'' means is a seed from which edible oil can be prepared. Such an argument has only to be mentioned to deserve rejection. The phrase ''edible oilseed'' can never mean what the learned Counsel suggests and can and does mean only an oil seed which is edible as an oil-seed. Cotton-seed not being edible, falls outside the class of ''edible oil-seed'' and so is not foodstuff within the meaning of Section 2 of the Ordinance or the Act of 1946."

The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to sunflower oil seeds as well. Though sunflower seed is an oil seed, it cannot be treated as edible oil seed. Just like cotton seed, it is not meant to be consumed as a seed. It is to be remembered that these Control Orders were promulgated u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the definition of ''essential commodity'', ''foodstuffs including edible oil seeds and oils'' is mentioned. Thus, the edible oil seeds contemplated by the aforementioned Control Orders are oil seeds which has the qualities or characteristics of ''food-stuffs''. If such oil-seeds are not fit for human consumption in the same form, the Supreme Court categorically held that they are not edible oil-seeds. We must, therefore accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

With regard to groundnut oil cake also, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted straightaway inasmuch as the definition of ''scheduled commodity'' contained in Clause 2(H) (i) includes products of edible oils. Whether groundnut oil cake can be regarded as a product of edible oil is at best a moot point and I leave it to the appropriate authorities to decide the same.

In the view I have taken, the seizure of sunflower oil seed must be held to be without the authority of law and de hors the provisions of the two Control Orders under which it was purportedly seized. When there is an inherent lack of power or jurisdiction on the part of the concerned statutory authority to seize a particular commodity, it is the duty of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct release of the commodity notwithstanding the pendency of the enquiry u/s 6A read with Section 6B or availability of alternative remedy. I therefore direct the release of the sunflower oil seeds forthwith.

As far as the other commodities are concerned, I directed interim stay of sale on 17-5-1995 pending enquiry u/s 6A and I further directed that the enquiry shall be finalised expeditiously. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry has not yet been taken up by the Joint Collector. Though the case was adjourned number of occasions, no counter has been filed. The learned Government Pleader is not in a position to throw any light on tine present stage of the proceedings u/s 6A. It is unfortunate that the authorities concerned have not given due weight to the wording ''expeditiously''. I am therefore constrained to fix a time limit of one month from the date of receipt of this order within which the enquiry u/s 6A shall be finalised after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to represent hi s case. Till then, the order directing interim sale of the seized goods will continue. However, if any of the commodities seized, on inspection by a competent official are likely to get damaged or spoiled even before the enquiry is finalised, it is open to the respondents to move this Court for appropriate modification of the order staying the sale.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.