Kerala High Court
M/S.Sun Food Products vs State Of Kerala
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933
WP(C).No. 22629 of 2011(C)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
M/S.SUN FOOD PRODUCTS, 12/955,
HALWA BAZAR, CALICUT - 673 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI.K.B.PRAMOD.
BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD 671121
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KUMBALA - 671 321.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANJESWARAM POLICE STATION - 671 323.
SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC NO.22629/11
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P2 SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE ALONG WITH TAX
INVOICE (3 IN NO).
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 29.6.11.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5.7.11.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 23.7.11.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 22629 OF 2011
=====================
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011
J U D G M E N T
According to the petitioner, 591 sacks of wheat procured by him was seized by the respondents invoking the powers under the Essential Commodities Act. Petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P4 application for releasing the wheat to them. That application has now been rejected and by Ext.P5 he has been informed that the Government have ordered to distribute the wheat to Chengara rehabilitants and Endosulfan victims and therefore the claim cannot be considered. It is challenging Ext.P5 the writ petition is filed.
2. Admittedly proceedings pursuant to which the wheat in question was seized are under the Essential Commodities Act and the rules thereunder. In such a case, petitioner cannot claim any right to get the wheat released and this position is settled by the Apex Court judgment in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal & another {(1990) 3 SCC 549}. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 is unassailable.
3. However, counsel for the petitioner complains that WPC No. 22629/11 :2 : even if that position is accepted, the right of the respondents is only to dispose of the wheat and not to distribute it in the manner it is now proposed to be done.
4. In my view, irrespective of the manner of appropriation of the wheat, in the event the petitioner ultimately succeeds, the only right the petitioner can claim is to be compensated by payment of value. Therefore, the manner in which wheat is appropriated by the respondents cannot be a matter of any concern to the petitioner so long as their rights are not affected.
5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks direction to the District Collector to expedite and conclude the proceedings. Since the proceedings based on the seizure of the wheat in question are pending before the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd respondent to conclude the same with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp