Kerala High Court
Joshy K.V Aged 49 Years vs State Of Kerala on 2 January, 2013
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/28TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 652 of 2013 (F)
-------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
1. JOSHY K.V AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.LATE K.V.VELAYUDHAN,KATTUNGAL HOUSE,KATTOOR P.O.
ILLIKKAD,IRINJALAKKUDA,THRISSUR DISTRICT
PIN-680702.
2. NOUSHAD N. AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.NOOR MUHAMMED,RAIBAN SHOPPING COMPLEX
XXVI 560/A4,MS WARD,ALAPPUZHA
PIN-688001.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU
SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND WELFARE
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN-695001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY
GOVERNEMNT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
3. THE DISTRICT FOOD SAFETY OFFICER
CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.
4. THE FOOD SAFETY OFFICER
PALAKKAD CIRCLE,CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD
PIN-678001.
BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MT. TOM K. THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No. 652 OF 2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DT.13-2-2012
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED UNDER THE KVAT ACT, 2003.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DT.18-5-12 ISSUED BY M/S.JAISWAL
PRODUCTS, G-82 PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110092 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE DT.18-5-12 ISSUED BY THE
TRANSPORT ASSOCIATED ROAD CARRIERS TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.20-12-2012 IN WPC 13580 OF
2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT.24-12-2012 ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO R2 SENT ON 2-1-2013.
EXHIBIT P5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DT.2-1-2013 ISSUED BY
THE ERNAKULAM HIGH COURT POST OFFICE FOR HAVING SENT THE REGD.LETTER TO
R2.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.3-1-2013 ISSUED BY R4 TO THE
DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.TN 25 F 7529.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASSOR ISSUED BY R4 TO THE DRIVER OF THE
VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.TN 25 F 7529.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH BILL DATED 2-1-2013 ISSUED BY POOJA
DISTRIBUTORS TO THE 2ND PETITIONER'S FIRM ROYAL ENTERPRISES AT ALLEPPEY.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.3-1-2013 ISSUED BY THE R4 FOR
HAVING TAKEN SAMPLES FROM THE GOODS CONTAINED IN THE VEHICLE BEARING
REG.NO.TN 38 BC 2596 TO MR.PADMAKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASSOR ISSUED BY R4 TO THE DRIVER OF
THE VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.TN 38 BC 2596.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P. ) No. 652 OF 2013
.........................................................................
Dated this the 18th January, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a dealer in 'Chewing tobacco'. In the course of business operation, the petitioner had brought some Chewing Tobacco earlier, when the same was intercepted and the issue whether the particular item was banned in the State and as to the rights and liberties of the parties concerned to deal with the said goods was the subject matter of consideration in W.P.(C)No. 13580 of 2012, (which came to be finalised as per Ext.P4 judgment). But in view of denying entry to the State, the materials brought by the petitioner were taken back and now, on passing Ext.P4 judgment, deciding the issue in favour of the petitioner, such items are sought to be brought back again. It was in the course of transit, that the goods have been detained again, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for immediate intervention and to have the goods released with reference to Ext. P4.
2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out the facts and figures, including the fact that Ext.P4 W.P. ) No. 652 OF 2013 2 judgment has not become final and that the State has challenged the same in W.A.No. 54 of 2013. After considering the matter, the Division Bench has admitted the appealr and an interim order of stay stands granted on 10.01.2013.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks for permission to take back the vehicle and goods in view of the subsequent turn of events. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that, it has to be ascertained whether the goods sought to be brought in were of the particular type, as pleaded by the petitioner or is there any banned item; for which purpose, samples have been collected as provided under the provisions of the Food Standards and Safety Act. The samples have been sent to the Regional Analytical Laboratory, Kozhikode and the Lab report is awaited. It is further stated that the prosecution proceedings will depend upon the report to be received from the Lab; and that in case, it is decided in the positive, naturally, the goods have to be produced before the concerned Magistrate's Court.
4. On going through the counter affidavit and on hearing, it appears that there is absolutely no objection with regard to the W.P. ) No. 652 OF 2013 3 release of the vehicle. As such, this Court finds that there is no rhyme or reason in detaining the vehicle any further. The petitioner is set at liberty to have the vehicle released, after unloading the goods at the cost of the petitioner and at the spot to be pointed out by the third respondent, after preparing an inventory/Mahazar. It shall be done forthwith on production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to proceed against the petitioner and the goods, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, depending upon the test result.
The respondents shall take necessary follow up action to get the test result immediately and if the test result is in favour of the petitioner, the goods shall be released to the petitioner on filing necessary application and on completing necessary formalities. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the merits as to the involvement of any offence.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, W.P. ) No. 652 OF 2013 4 JUDGE.
lk