Kerala High Court
K.C. Krishnadas vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2012
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 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/26TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 4018 of 2013 (B)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
K.C. KRISHNADAS, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.V. CHAMIYAPPAN, PROPREITOR,
SREE RAM RICE MILL, KODUVAYOOR, PALGHAT.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA,
SMT.K.N.SREEDEVI,
SRI.M.C.SREERENJITH.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD, PIN:678 001.
3. TAHSILDAR, CHITTOR TALUK,
CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN:678 101.
4. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN:678 101.
BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.GEORGE MECHERIL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15-02-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO. 4021 OF 2013, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 4018 of 2013 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO. A3/67/2012-13 DATED 26.03.2012.
EXHIBIT P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE UNDER FSS ACT DATED 01.04.2012.
EXHIBIT P1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.14/08-09/CTR (W/C).
EXHIBIT P1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
DATED 09.05.2007.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 09.02.2013.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.02.2013.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
-----------------------------------------
W.P. (C) NOs. 4018 & 4021 of 2013
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2013
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioners is both these cases are dealers in rice, who are stated as pursuing the business, on the strength of valid licences. The grievance of the petitioners is that, there was a surprise inspection in their premises and quite a huge stock of rice was seized, alleging that the petitioners had stocked the same after some diversion of the goods forming part of the public distribution system. According to the petitioners, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for having seized the rice and that the stock was well supported by Bill and relevant records showing the purchase and procession. It is stated that the petitioners have not committed any offence and that the interception made by the concerned respondent adversely affects the rights and interest of the petitioners to pursue business in a lawful manner. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petitions.
2. When the matters came up for consideration before this Court on 11/2/2013, instruction was required to be obtained W.P. (C) NOs. 4018 & 4021 of 2013 2 from the respondents; simultaneously ordering that the rice seized from the petitioners shall not be distributed until further orders are obtained in this Court. Today, when the matters are taken up for further consideration, the learned Government Pleader submits on instructions, that the District Collector has decided to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and that notice is being issued to the petitioners to appear for hearing scheduled on 22/3/2013. It stated that the adjudication proceedings will be finalised by the District Collector only after hearing the petitioners and as such, the matters can be disposed of accordingly.
3. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the facts and figures projected by the petitioners need not be looked into or decided by this Court referring on merits. Both these writ petitions are disposed of, directing the District Collector to finalise the adjudication proceedings in accordance with law, at the earliest. The interim order passed by this Court will continue till such time.
4. It is made clear that the District Collector shall let W.P. (C) NOs. 4018 & 4021 of 2013 3 know the petitioners as to the circumstances which led to seizure of the rice and the alleged violation of the relevant provisions of law, if any, so as to enable them to substantial the position with reference to the actual facts and figures.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE AS