:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

WRIT PETITION No.66206/2012 (GM-RES )

BETWEEN:

M/s. Metrani Agencies,

Indian Gas Distributors,
Shinthri Colony,
Nippani Town,
Belgaum District,
By its Proprietor,
Shri Janeshwar Tukaram Metrani.
…PETITIONERS

(By Sri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate)

AND:

1. The Deputy Commissioner (Food),

Belgaum District, Belgaum.

2. The Deputy Director of Food and

Civil Supplies,
Belgaum District, Belgaum.

3. The Assistant Commissioner,

Chikkodi Sub-Division,
Chikkodi, Belgaum District.
 :2:

4. The Deputy Tahsildar,

Chikkodi Taluk,
Belgaum District.

5. The Area Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation,
(LPG Division),
RPD Cross, Kanapur Road,
Belgaum.

6. The Police Inspector,

Shri Basaveshwara Police Station,
Nippani.

7. Chief Manager (LPG-S),

Indian Oil Bhavan No.29,
P. Kalingarao Road (Mission Road),
Bangalore – 560027.
…RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. P.H. Gotkhindi, HCGP for R1 to R4 & R6,

Sri. C.V. Angadi, Advocate for R5; R7 is served)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. , praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated
by the 3rd Respondent through his letter dated 23.04.2012
addressed to the 5th Respondent at Annexure-E, etc.

This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing

in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of certiorari or

 :3:

order to quash the entire proceedings initiated by the 3rd

Respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Sub-

Division, Chikkodi, Belgaum District, vide his letter dated

23.04.2012 produced at Annexure-E; to quash the

communication/order dated 25.04.2012 issued by the 2nd

Respondent-Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies,

Belgaum District, Belgaum (Annexure-K); to quash the

Criminal proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional police

in Crime No.26/2012 dated 24.04.2012 as per Annexure-

J and to quash the communication issued by the 7th

Respondent-Chief Manager, LPG-S, Indian Oil Bhavan,

Bangalore, dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure-N) suspending

the distributorship of the petitioner, who is an

authorized distributor of Indian Oil Corporation, dealing

with domestic and commercial Liquefied Petroleum Gas in

Nippani.

2) The 3rd Respondent-Assistant Commissioner,

Chikkodi sub-Division, Chikkodi, who is the authorized

officer under the Essential Commodities Act, conducted

 :4:

inspection of the petitioner’s shop premises at about 12.00

noon on 23.04.2012 and noticed several contraventions of

the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of

Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (for short, ‘Order

2000’ ) issued under Essential Commodities Act. After

noticing several violations and contraventions under the

aforesaid Order, the Assistant Commissioner sent a

communication dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure-E) to the

Area Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., LPG

Division, Belgaum, to take suitable action for cancelling

the agency. On receipt of the said letter, the Area

Manager of Indian Oil Corporation, Belgaum, issued a

showcause notice to the petitioner calling upon the

petitioner to submit its explanation within two days as

per (Annexure-F). On receipt of Annexure-F, the

petitioner submitted its explanation as per Annexure-G

dated 27.04.2012. Subsequently, by order dated

02.05.2012 (Annexure-N), the Chief Manager, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited ordered suspension of distributorship

granted to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, at about

 :5:

11.45 am. on 24.04.2012, the Deputy Tahsildar, (Food),

Chikkodi, along with the Village Accountant, Nippani and

others visited the LPG Gas Cylinders Distribution Center

of the petitioner in Nippani and conducted search of the

premises and found violation of several provisions of the

aforesaid Order 2000. He also noticed difference in the

quantity of actual stock and the LPG Cylinders found in

the stock register. Therefore, the Tahsildar seized all

those articles such as Gas Cylinders, both domestic and

non-domestic and since they were found to be highly

inflammable and explosive, stored them in the said

premises as he could not immediately find an alternative

place, where those Gas Cylinders could be safely stored

and sealed the premises. Thereafter, the Deputy Tahsildar

submitted a report to the PSI, Sri Basaveshwara Police

Station, Nippani, as per Annexure-H, based on which, the

Police registered the case in Crime No.26/2012 for

violation of Section–3 punishable under Section-7 of the

Essential Commodities Act,1955 and submitted the FIR to

the jurisdictional Magistrate under Annexure-J.

 :6:

Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Sub-

Division, issued a showcause notice as per Annexure-P

dated 14.05.2012 calling upon the petitioner to showcase

as to why the Distributorship granted to the petitioner

should not be cancelled for committing violation in

contravention of the various provisions of the Order, 2000.

The petitioner on receipt of the showcause notice appears

to have filed his explanation as per Annexure-Q on

19.05.2012. The proceedings in that regard are still

pending before the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by

the order of the Chief Maanger, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, suspending the distributorship, aggrieved by the

seizure of the Gas Cylinders and shop premises by the

Deputy Tahsildar and complaining that in spite of

submitting the explanation, the Assistant Commissioner

has not passed necessary orders in the proceedings

initiated by him, the petitioner has presented this petition

seeking the reliefs as noticed supra.

3) Upon service of notice, the learned Government

Advocate appearing for Respondents-1 to 4 & 6 has filed

 :7:

the detailed statement of objections and also additional

statements. Respondents- 5 & 7, the Area Manager as

well as the Chief Manager, respectively of Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, are represented by their learned

counsel. However, they have not filed any statement of

objections.

4) I have heard Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Gotkhindi,

Government Advocate appearing for Respondents-1 to 4 &

6 and Sri. C.V. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for

Respondents- 5 & 7.

5) The principal contention urged by Sri.

Jagadeesh Patil is that, the Deputy Tahsildar has no

power or authority or jurisdiction to conduct any search

and seizure as per the Order, 2000 or under the Essential

Commodities Act, 1995. Therefore, seizure of the Gas

Cylinders and other equipments as also the premises is

without jurisdiction. He further contended that the

registration of the criminal case on the basis of search

 :8:

and seizure effected by the Deputy Tahsildar is also

without any jurisdiction. It is his further contention that,

though the petitioner has submitted its valid explanations

to the Respondents- 5 & 7, without considering the

explanation, Respondent No.7 has passed an order

keeping the distributorship of the petitioner under

suspension, as such, the said order is bad in law. He

further contended that though more than five months

have been elapsed from the date of submitting the

explanation to the showcause notice issued by the

Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner has

not passed any order thereof and on account of these acts

by the respondents, the petitioner is prevented from

carrying on his business and thereby it has affected his

livelihood.

6) Per contra, Sri. P.H. Gotkhindi, learned

Government Advocate contended that as per the official

memorandum issued by the Commissioner of Food and

Civil Supplies, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore,

 :9:

dated 01.04.1998, even the Taluk Shirastedars, who are

generally termed as Deputy Tahsildars are also designated

as Inspectors of Food and Civil Supplies and they are

competent to conduct search and seizure as per the

aforesaid Order 2000, therefore, the search and seizure

effected by the Deputy Tahsildar as well as initiation of

criminal prosecution on the basis of the report of the

Deputy Tahsildar is in accordance with law, as such, there

are no reasons for quashing those orders. He further

contended that since the Deputy Tahsildar at the time of

seizure of the Gas Cylinders could not immediately find

an alternative premises for shifting the seized Gas

Cylinders, which are highly inflammable and explosive in

nature, to keep them in safe place, has kept them in the

said premises of the petitioner and has sealed the

premises and immediately on finding an alternative place,

the seized articles would be removed from the said

premises and the sealing of the premises would be

released. He further contended that the necessary

direction may be issued to the Assistant Commissioner to

 : 10 :

pass appropriate orders on the showcause notice already

issued. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

7) Sri. C.V. Angadi, learned counsel for

Respondents-5 & 7 endorsed the argument of Sri.

Gotkhindi and sought dismissal of the petition.

8) I have bestowed my anxious considerations to

the submissions made by the learned counsel on both

sides.

9) As could be seen from the official memorandum

dated 01.04.1998 issued by the Commissioner of Food

and Civil Supplies in Karnataka, Bangalore, a copy of

which is produced along with the additional statements of

objections filed by the learned Government Advocate, it is

clear that Taluka Shirastedars, I and II Grade Food and

Civil Supplies Inspectors working in Bangalore, in formal

areas/Districts and other informal rationing areas and

the Taluks/Districts are empowered to ensure

implementation of the provisions of various control orders

 : 11 :

listed in Anneuxre-2 therein as enforcing officer. The

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and

Distribution) Order 1993 , which was repealed by Order

2000, is one of the orders enumerated in Annexure-2

attached to the Official Memorandum. Therefore, from the

above it is manifestly clear that the Taluka Shirastedar,

who is generally termed as Deputy Tahsildar, is an

enforcing officer to ensure implementation of the

provisions of various control orders including the Order

2000. Regulation-13 of the Order 2000 deals with the

power of entries, search and seizure, which reads as

under:-

13. Power of entry, search and seizure:

(1) Any Officer of the Central or the State

Government not below the rank of inspector
duly authorised by a general or a special order,
by the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be or any officer
of a Government Oil Company not below the
rank of Sales Officer, authorised by the Central
Government, may, with a view to securing due
 : 12 :

compliance of this order or any other order

made thereunder:

a) Stop and search any vessel or vehicle

used or capable of being used for the
transport or storage of any petroleum
product.

a) Enter and search any place,

b) Seize stocks of liquefied petroleum gas

along with container and/or
equipments, such as cylinders, gas
cylinder valves, pressure regulators
and seals in respect of which he has
reason to believe that a contravention
of the Order has been, or is being, or
is about to be made.

2) The sales officer of a Government Oil

Company shall be authorised to secure
compliance of this order by the distributors
appointed under the public distribution system
and or by the consumer registered by them.

10) Reading of the aforesaid Regulation makes it

clear that the officer mentioned therein is empowered to,-

i) Stop and search any vessel or vehicle used

or capable of being used for transportation
or storage of any petroleum product;

ii) To enter and search any place;

 : 13 :

iii) Seize stocks of liquefied petroleum gas

along with container and/or equipments.

Clause (c) further describes the containers and/or

equipments that could be seized as cylinders, gas cylinder
valves, pressure regulators and seals. Those articles can
be seized if the officer concerned has reason to believe
that a contravention of this Order has been, or is being,
or is about to be made.

11) Thus, from the above it is further clear that

though the officer concerned has power to enter and

search any place and also seize any article which he has

reason to believe that a contravention is being made, the

said Regulation does not empower the officer to seal any

premises. Therefore, though the seizure of gas cylinders

etc. carried on by the Deputy Tahsildar is in accordance

with the power under Regulation-13 of the Order 2000, in

my opinion, sealing of the premises is without any

jurisdiction or authority. If the Deputy Tahsildar, was of

the opinion that the gas cylinders etc. enumerated in

Clause (c) of Regulation 13(1) were being used for

 : 14 :

contravention of any orders, it is open for him to seize

those articles. However, he had no authority to seal the

premises. Therefore, the act of sealing the premises by

the Deputy Tahsildar, in my opinion, as rightly contended

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was without any

authority of law, as such, the same will have to be

quashed. The Deputy Tahsildar is under an obligation to

remove all the sealed and seized articles from the premises

and release the premises from the seal so as to enable the

petitioner to make use of the premises for any other

purposes of his choice. The Deputy Tahsildar is required

to comply with this order within a limited period.

12) In view of the fact that the Deputy Tahsildar is

empowered to conduct search and seizure and he being an

enforcing officer to ensure implementation of any of the

orders enumerated under the Official Memorandum, the

report lodged by him to the jurisdictional police reporting

contravention of the provisions of the essential

commodities Act cannot be held as without jurisdiction.

 : 15 :

Therefore, the registration of the case by the jurisdictional

police based on the report submitted by the deputy

Tahsildar is in accordance with law and no fault can be

found with.

13) Having regard to the allegations made in the

report of the Deputy Tahsildar, based on the search

conducted by him, I find no material at this stage to quash

the criminal case registered by the police or the

investigation thereof. The jurisdictional police are at

liberty to proceed with the investigation and file

appropriate report thereon.

14) As noticed supra, the showcause notice was

issued to the petitioner by the Indian Oil Corporation, to

which the petitioner submitted his explanation and

thereafter in order to safeguard the interest of the

customers attached to the petitioner’s distributorship, the

distributorship of the petitioner is kept under suspension.

 : 16 :

15) Having regard to the facts and circumstances

of the case, at this stage, I find no ground to quash the

order passed by the 7th respondent suspending the

distributorship of the petitioner.

16) The Assistant Commissioner, who initiated the

proceedings by issuing showcause notice is under an

obligation to pass necessary orders after the petitioner

filed his explanation. It is noticed that though the

explanation has been submitted by the petitioner on

19.05.2012, till today, the Assistant Commissioner has

not passed appropriate orders. Therefore, it is necessary

to issue direction to the Assistant Commissioner to pass

appropriate orders with a time frame.

17) In view of the above discussions, the petition is

allowed-in-part. The Deputy Tahsildar-Respondent No.4

is hereby directed to remove all the seized articles from the

premises in question within 15 days from today and

release the premises from sealing and hand it over to the

petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Sub-

 : 17 :

Division, Chikkodi, is directed to pass necessary orders in

the proceedings initiated by him in SUP/V.VA/22/2012-

13 (Annexure-E) within a period of one month from today.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

SD/-
JUDGE

KGR*