SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR. v.

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 6289 of 2008)

JANUARY 22, 2010 [Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.]

2010 (1) SCR 1119

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Special Leave Petition is directed against  the judgment and order dated 18th March, 2008, passed by the Chhattisgarh  

High Court at Bilaspur in Crl. Revision No.459 of 2002, dismissing the same.  

2.  Briefly  stated,  the facts  involved are that  on 3rd February,  2000,  a  

hundred bags of paddy were being transported by one Ramesh Sahu, the  

driver of truck No.MP-23DA 2115 belonging to the one Hemant Kumar, the  

Petitioner No.2 herein. The said driver was transporting the said paddy on the  

strength of a letter written on the letter pad of Bajrang Rice Mill. En route the  

truck was searched by the Food Inspector  and the paddy was seized.  In  

accordance with Clause 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities  

(Exhibition of Price and Price Control) Order, 1997, confiscation proceedings  

were initiated and the seized paddy was ordered to be confiscated by the  

Collector. An appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the learned  

Sessions Judge, Bilsapur, in Crl. Appeal No.65 of 2001, confirming the order  

dated 13th March, 2001, passed by the Collector and Licensing Authority,  

Janjgir Champa, in Case No.60 of 2000. The Appellate Order was questioned  

in revision before the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur and the same was  

also dismissed on 18th March, 2009. The said decision is the subject matter  

of the present Special Leave Petition.  

3.  Appearing  in  support  of  the  Special  Leave  Petition,  Mr.  Saurabh  

Suman Sinha, learned Advocate, questioned the order of the High Court on  

several grounds. It was contended by him that having regard to the definition

of “dealer” in the M.P. Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price  

Control) Order, 1997, hereinafter referred to as “the Control Order, 1997”, the  

Petitioners  had  not  committed  any  illegality  in  transporting  the  paddy  in  

question. It was pointed out that clause 2(a) defines “dealer” as a person who  

carries on the business of selling by retail or wholesale or storing for sale by  

retail or wholesale any commodity whether or not such business is carried in  

addition to any other business, but does not include a hawker or a peddler. It  

was submitted that the said definition of “dealer” was amended by the State  

Government in prior consultation with the Central Government by notification  

dated 10th September, 1998, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section  

3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The amended definition of “dealer”  

included any person dealing with  any essential  commodity included in the  

Schedule  to  the  “Licensing  and  Restriction  on  Hoardings)  Order,  1991,  

hereinafter referred to as “the Licensing Order, 1991”, and if dealing with only  

one commodity under the said Order at any time in quantity of more than 200  

(two hundred) quintals.  

4.  Mr.  Sinha also referred to the definition of “dealer” in the Licensing  

Order,  1991,  wherein  a “dealer”  was  described  in  clause 2(e)  to  mean a  

person who is engaged or intends to engage in the business of purchase,  

sale  or  storage for  sale  of  any one food grain  specified  in  Schedule  I  in  

quantity of 10 quintals or more at any one time and in respect of all  food  

grains taken together  in  quantity of  50 quintals  or  more at  any one time.  

Certain other commodities were also referred to which are not relevant for our  

purpose.  The said  Licensing  Order,  1991,  was amended by a  notification  

dated 27th April, 1998, by the State Government with the prior concurrence of  

the Central Government, wherein the definition of “dealer” was once again  

amended to mean a person, partnership firm, association or any registered  

body engaged in or intends to engage in the business of purchase, sale or  

storage  for  sale  (not  including  store  of  commodities  produced  by  him  by  

personal  cultivation)  and  includes  the  business  of  commercial  agent,  and

processor  dealing  in  any or  all  of  the  scheduled  commodities,  other  than  

sugar, of only one of scheduled commodities at any one time in quantity of  

more  than  200  quintals.  Mr.  Sinha  sought  to  urge  that  the  definition  of  

“dealer”,  therefore,  did  not  include persons dealing in  any one Scheduled  

commodity at any time in quantities of less than 200 quintals. It was urged  

that the Licensing Order,  1991, would be attracted only if  the transactions  

involved more than 200 quintals of a Scheduled commodity at any one time.  

5.  Learned  counsel  submitted  that  since  the  consignment  in  question  

comprised 100 quintals  of  paddy,  the  same  did  not  attract  the  

provisions  of  the  aforesaid  Licensing  Order,  1991,  and  the  seizure  and  

confiscation thereof was, therefore, wholly illegal and without any legal basis.

6. Mr. Sinha then urged that there was no compulsion under any of the  

Licensing Orders for the transporter or the driver of the vehicle carrying the  

goods to retain with him a copy of the receipt, invoice or bill relating to the  

goods in question and that Clause 11 of the Licensing Order, 1991, merely  

provides that the licence holder will give only one copy of receipt or invoice to  

each  customer  containing  his  name,  address,  licence  number,  name  of  

customer and licence number (if  any), date of transaction, sold quantity in  

quintals,  total  amount  received and he will  keep second copy with  him to  

show on demand by the licensing authority or by any other officer authorized  

by him for inspection.  Mr.  Sinha urged that  Clause 11 did not  require the  

transporter of the goods to carry with him any of the aforesaid documents  

mentioned in the said Clause. In fact, the driver of the vehicle was carrying a  

letter dated 3rd February, 2000, written by the Petitioner No.1 to Bajrang Rice  

Mill, Sargaon, informing the said Mill that a hundred bags of paddy, weighing  

75 quintals, had been sent by truck No.MP-23DA 2115 and to receive the  

same and send payment and empty bags of paddy through the driver of the  

truck Ramesh Sahu. It was also indicated that due to absence of the Mandi  

Authorities,  the Bill  and License would be sent  to the Mill  later.  In fact,  a  

Credit  Memo also  dated 3rd  February,  2000,  for  a  sum of  Rs.39,375/-  in

relation to truck was also sent to the buyer Bajrang Rice Mill, Sargaon, for the  

purpose of payment for the transported goods.  

7.  Mr.  Sinha  submitted  that  in  view  of  the  above,  the  seizure  and  

confiscation of the paddy was wholly arbitrary and was liable to be set aside  

with a direction for return of the seized goods.

8.  On  behalf  of  the  State  of  Chhattisgarh,  Mr.  Aniruddha  P.  Mayee,  

learned Advocate, however, urged that the definition of “dealer” as sought to  

be interpreted on behalf  of  the Petitioners was erroneous since under the  

Licensing Order, 1991, the definition of “dealer” had been amended on 27th  

April, 1998, to include persons engaged in business of any one Scheduled  

commodity at any one time in quantities of more than 200 quintals. According  

to learned counsel for the Respondent, the said definition did not refer to any  

one transaction as a whole but in respect of the amounts of the scheduled  

commodity which was being dealt with by the person concerned. Accordingly,  

a person dealing in any one Scheduled commodity at any time in quantities of  

more than 200 quintals would be a “dealer” and would also be considered as  

a “dealer” for transportation of any goods, even if the same was below 200  

quintals. It was submitted it was precisely for such a reason persons dealing  

in  food  grains  were  required  to  hold  a  licence  for  dealing  in  the  said  

commodity in respect of quantities as indicated in the Licensing Order, 1991.  

9. As far as Clause 11 of the Licensing Order 1991, is concerned, it was  

urged that  the said clause merely indicated the procedure that  was to be  

followed in respect of a transaction of buying and selling by a dealer to a  

customer and it was naturally expected that the documents in question were  

to accompany the consignment and that  the fact  that  the petitioners were  

aware of the said requirement would also be evident from the letter written by  

the Respondent No.1 to Bajrang Rice Mill on 3rd February, 2000, indicating  

that  he would  later  come with  the Bill  and Licence in  respect  of  the said  

consignment.

10. Learned counsel submitted that the transportation of the paddy was in  

violation of clause 11 of the Licensing Order, 1991, and the consignment had  

been rightly seized and confiscated in the absence of the documents Learned  

counsel submitted that no case had not been made out for interference in the  

impugned judgment of the High Court.  

11. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the  

respective parties and we are inclined to agree with the submissions made on  

behalf of Respondent State, since in our view the definition of the expression  

“dealer” in the Licensing Order, 1991, was not intended to include only such  

persons as were dealing in essential commodity in quantities of more than  

200 quintals.  The intention of the legislature appears to have been that a  

dealer  is  a  person  who  would  be  dealing  in  Scheduled  food  grains  in  

quantities  of  more  than  200  quintals  at  a  time  and  was  not  confined  to  

individual transactions as in the instant case. We are also of the view that it  

was  incumbent  on  the  part  of  the  transporter  to  carry  along  with  the  

consignment the documents mentioned in Clause 11 of the Licensing Order,  

1991, at least for the purpose of identification, so that there was no possibility  

of the transported commodity being used for any purpose other than for what  

it was meant.

12. For the sake of reference, Clause 11 of the Licensing Order, 1991, is  

reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Clause 11 - Licence Holder will give only one copy of Receipt or Invoice  to each customer containing his name, address, Licence Number, name  

of  customer  and  Licence  Number  (if  any),  date  of  transaction,  sold  

quantity in quintals, total paddy and amount received and he will keep its  

second copy with him to show on demand by Licensing Authority or by  

any other Officer authorized by him for inspection.”

13. Although, the aforesaid clause does not stipulate that the documents  

indicated  therein  are  to  be  carried  along  with  the  consignment  being

transported,  the documents concerned are safeguards against  clandestine  

dealing in the food grains covered by the Licensing Order, 1991. The receipt  

or invoice as also the name of the customer and Licence Number, if any, the  

date  of  transaction  and the  quantity  of  paddy sold,  are  documents  which  

prove the authenticity of the transaction entered into by the licence holder in  

respect of the said consignment. We are of the view that it was necessary for  

the  said  documents  to  accompany the  consignment  of  paddy  which  was  

being transported.  

14.  As  far  as  the  confiscation  proceedings  under  clause  6(2)  of  the  

Control  Order,  1997,  are  concerned,  the  same  are  dependent  on  the  

proceedings relating to the alleged violation of Clause 11 of the Licensing  

Order, 1991.  

15. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the  

High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.