The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the seizure order dated 19.7.02 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the goods have been seized.
2.Heard Mr.Prajapati for the petitioner and Ms.Manisha Shah, Ld.AGP for respondents. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that as per the instructions of the petitioner there is no authority with the officer to pass the seizure order. It is also contended by Mr. Prajapati on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of seizure order the detention orders are being passed and civil proceedings under Essential Commodities Act are initiated against the petitioner. The contention raised by Mr.Prajapati is that since the seizure is without any authority same calls for interference.
3.On behalf of respondents, Ms.Manisha Shah, Ld.AGP has submitted that as per the circular dated 6.3.1999, copy whereof is supplied to Mr.Prajapati, the officer who has passed the order has the authority to seize the goods. Therefore, the contention is misconceived. Copy of the circular, dated 6.3.1999 upon which the Ld.AGP places reliance is taken on record.
4.Having considered the above and more particularly when this court issued notice on 25.7.02 it was only on the point of authority to search and seize the goods in view of clause 4 of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998, since the copy of the said circular is supplied to the petitioner, and the perusal of same shows that there is no substance on the point of the authority. However, so far as the other contentions regarding other consequential order, i.e. passing of detention order and initiation of proceedings under Essential Commodities are concerned, the petitioner will have remedy in accordance with law and at this stage it can not be said that any prejudice is caused because of the same.
5.So far as relief for retesting of samples is concerned, the same can not be entertained at this stage and as and when action is initiated on the basis of the same, the petitioner will have remedy under law.
6.In view of the above, I do not find any substance in this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected. Notice is discharged.
26.8.02(JAYANT PATEL,J)