P.T. Thomas vs The State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22722 of 2008(E)


1. P.T. THOMAS, MERCHANT,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, TELLICHERY.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :07/08/2008

 O R D E R
                      S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                ==================
                 W.P(C)No.22722 of 2008
                ==================
         Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008.

                      J U D G M E N T

This writ petition filed on 13.10.2006 is coming up for

admission today. The issue involved in this writ petition is

as to whether the confiscation of rice seized from the

petitioner under the Food Grains Dealer’s Licensing Order

is sustainable. The petitioner applied for a licence under

the Food Grains Dealer’s Licensing Order. According to the

petitioner, anticipating favourable orders in the application

for licence, the petitioner started business and procured

rice. The authorities seized the same. While the

confiscation proceedings were pending, the rice was

released to the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee

for an amount of Rs.1,32,000/-, determined as the value of

the same. Subsequently the confiscation proceedings were

finalised directing confiscation of the rice. Consequently,

the bank guarantee was invoked. The said proceedings are

W.P(C)No.22722 of 2008 – 2 –

under challenge in this writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

Admittedly, at the time when the rice was seized from

the petitioner, the petitioner did not have a licence under

the Food Grains Dealer’s Licensing Order. Therefore, the

petitioner cannot now dispute that the action of the

respondents was illegal. The fact that the petitioner was

anticipating a favourble order in an application for licence

is not a valid defence against an action for doing business in

rice without a valid licence. That being so, I do no find

anything wrong with the orders directing confiscation of the

rice. As such, there is no merit in this writ petition and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

rhs