CS PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/13411/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240636632026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13411 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CS PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HASIT DAVE(1321) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 26/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioners praying for the
following reliefs:
“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature of
writ of mandamus and or any other appropriate writ
order or direction directing the Respondent no 1
State to hear and dispose of Petitioners pending
appeal now within a period of 1 month.
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to pending the final
disposal of the present petition be pleased to direct
the Respondent no 2 Collector Bharuch, to continue
renewing the Hexane license of the Petitioner
unconditionally.
(C) Your Lordships be pleased to grant ex parte ad
interim relief in terms of prayer B above pending the
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:21 IST 2026
C/SCA/13411/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240636632026)
issuance of notice and further proceedings in the
matter.
(D) For such other and further reliefs as the
circumstances may require.”
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hasit Dave for the petitioners
and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Davda for the respondents.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted
that the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the learned
Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Sachivalay,
Gandhinagar in the year 2016. However, till today, the said appeal
has not been decided on merits and, therefore, the present petition
is filed seeking direction to be issued to respondent No. 1 to hear
and dispose of the pending appeal within stipulated period of time.
4. Learned AGP for the respondents, by drawing the attention
of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply and, more particularly, page
No. 6, contended that the memo of appeal which has been
annexed to the present petition, does not show any filing or
registration number and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
respondent has received the memo of appeal. It is submitted that
the petitioners have not exhausted the alternate remedy by
challenging the order dated 27.06.2016 before appropriate Judicial
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:21 IST 2026
C/SCA/13411/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240636632026)
Authority as contemplated under Section 6C of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter, referred to “the Act” ). In view
of this, it is submitted that, even if, for the sake of assumption,
respondent No. 1 has received the memo of appeal, the same
would not be maintainable.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned
advocates for the parties and upon perusal of the papers placed
on record, it appears that the contention of the petitioners in the
present petition is that the petitioners were holding a licence which
was issued by respondent No. 2 for the solvent commodities.
Respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice on 10.06.2016
calling upon the petitioners to explain as to why action should not
be taken under the provisions of the Act for confiscation of solvent
be undertaken for breach of provisions of Solvent, Raffinate and
Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage, and Prevention of Use in
Automobiles) Order, 2000. Reply was filed against the said show-
cause notice and, after considering the material available on
record, respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 09/12.09.2016.
6. The petitioners approached this Court by way of Special Civil
Application No. 17611 of 2016. The petitioners were found to have
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:21 IST 2026
C/SCA/13411/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240636632026)
an alternate remedy available and, therefore, by an order dated
18.11.2016, petitioners were directed to file an appeal before the
respondent authority. It is noticed from submissions of learned
advocates for both the parties that on one hand, the petitioners are
coming out with the case that an appeal has been preferred before
the learned Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department,
Sachivalay, Gandhinagar on 25.11.2016 and, on the other hand,
respondent No. 1 is stating that they have not received the memo
of appeal. Be it as it may. Whether the memo of appeal is received
is hardly of any importance. Section 6C of the Act is reproduced
hereunder:
“6C. Appeal.― (1) Any person aggrieved by an order
of confiscation under section 6A may, within one
month from the date of the communication to him of
such order, appeal to any judicial authority appointed
by the State Government concerned and the judicial
authority shall, after giving an opportunity to the
appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may
think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order
appealed against.
(2) Where an order under section 6A is
modified or annulled by such judicial authority, or
where in a prosecution instituted for the
contravention of the order in respect of which an
order of confiscation has been made under section
6A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either
case it is not possible for any reason to return the
essential commodity seized, such persons shall,
except as provided by sub-section (3) of section 6A,
be paid the price therefore as if the essential
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:21 IST 2026
C/SCA/13411/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240636632026)
commodity, had been sold to the Government with
reasonable interest calculated from the day of the
seizure of the essential commodity and such price
shall be determined―
(i) in the case of food grains, edible oilseeds
or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of
sub-section (3B) of section 3;
(ii) in the case of sugar, in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (3C) of section 3; and
(iii) in the case of any other essential
commodity, in accordance with the provisions of sub-
section (3) of section 3.”
7. The said provision mandates that the person aggrieved by
an order of confiscation under Section 6A of the Act, may, within a
period of one month from the date of communication of the order,
appeal to any Judicial Authority appointed by the State
Government and the Judicial Authority shall, after giving full
opportunity to the appellant, pass order as it deems fit.
8. Learned advocate for the petitioners, upon instructions, very
candidly conceded that the petitioners are ready and willing to
exhaust an alternate remedy as prescribed under Section 6C of
the Act by filing appeal before the appropriate Judicial Authority. As
and when any appeal is preferred by the petitioners before the
appropriate Judicial Authority, the same may be decided
independently after giving full opportunity of being heard.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:21 IST 2026
C/SCA/13411/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240636632026)
9. On such submission, this Court has not expressed any
opinions on merits. If any appeal is filed by the petitioners herein,
the Judicial Authority shall decide the question independently
based on material available on record, after giving full opportunity
of being heard and also without being influenced by the
observations made hereinabove.
10. The time consumed in litigating present petition may be
considered by the competent authority, if any application for
condonation of delay is filed by the petitioners herein.
11. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted
that respondent No. 2 had renewed the licence until last year and
that the petitioners are ready and willing to submit the undertaking
as they have been submitting in the previous years. In view of the
submission made by learned advocate for the petitioners, the
petitioners are permitted to submit the undertaking before
respondent No. 2, who shall consider the same and take
appropriate decision in accordance with law.
12. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service, as prayed for, is permitted.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MUSKAN
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:21 IST 2026