The High Court of Chhattisgarh has quashed an order by the Collector of Rajnandgaon that imposed a Rs.1,00,000 fine on a local LPG distributor for allegedly charging above the notified price. The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that the Collector had no power under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 to impose penalties, and that the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 limits cognizance of offences to courts on specific written reports. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 8 October 2018.
The petition was filed by Kamal Sukh Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak, a partnership firm and registered distributor of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, after a Food Inspector’s report led to departmental proceedings and the Collector’s order alleging overcharging of Ujjwala scheme beneficiaries. The distributor maintained that proper procedure and jurisdictional limits were not respected, and produced affidavits from consumers denying the allegation. The State relied on the show-cause process and the enquiry report to justify the fine.
In its reasoning, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 3 empowers the central government to regulate supply and distribution of essential commodities and Section 7 prescribes penalties. Crucially, Section 11 specifies how cognizance of offences under the Act is to be taken: only a court may take cognizance and that generally only on a written report by a public servant or an aggrieved person or recognised consumer association. The judges observed that the LPG Order of 2000 contains regulatory directions about sale and pricing by distributors but does not create a parallel penal procedure that authorizes the Collector to levy fines.
Because the LPG Order, 2000 does not itself provide for a mechanism to impose penalties, and there is no enabling provision empowering the Collector to take cognizance and impose fines under Section 3/7 of the Act, the court concluded the Collector acted without jurisdiction. The High Court therefore set aside the Rs.1,00,000 penalty and allowed the petition. The formal order is dated 8 May 2023.
This judgment clarifies the limits of administrative powers in enforcement of pricing rules for essential commodities. It highlights that where a regulatory order prescribes standards of conduct, enforcement that carries penal consequences must be anchored in the statute or follow the procedures the statute prescribes. For distributors and regulators alike, the ruling is a reminder that alleged breaches of regulatory directions may require criminal or quasi-judicial processes that conform to the Act’s cognizance and procedure provisions rather than summary penalty orders from administrative officers.
Citation : 2023 Local Law (CG) 700
Case Details : WPCR No. 66 of 2019, Kamal Sukh Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ashish Surana, Advocate. For Respondents/Defendant: Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Acts/Rules/Orders: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 11, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 7; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 21