IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26898 of 2010(J)
1. HAJI A. SAFARUDEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
6. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
7. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
8. THE DEPOT MANAGER,
9. THE RATIONING INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 26898 of 2010 J
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Vide Ext.P5 mahazar dated 10-08-2010, 139 bags of
raw rice belonging to the petitioner were seized by the
respondents on the ground that the same was possessed by the
petitioner, without a licence under the provisions of Kerala Food
Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967. It is this proceedings
which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
2. Going by the pleadings, although the petitioner applied
for licence under the aforesaid order, licence was issued to the
petitioner only on 18-08-2010. Therefore, the inevitable
conclusion is at the time of seizure, namely on 10-08-2010, the
petitioner did not have a licence under the aforesaid order.
3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the application for the licence having been
made by him as early as on 24-05-2008, the licence issued ought
to have effective from the date of application. Any licence issued,
can be valid only from the date of its issue. There is no provision
either in the order or in the Essential Commodities Act, mandating
WPC.26898/10
: 2 :
that licence issued on an application should be effective from the
date of the application. If that be so, the contention now raised
cannot be accepted.
4. It is contended that in view of the provisions contained
in the Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits and
Movement Restriction) on Specified Food Stuffs Order, 2002, the
requirement of the licence under the 1967 Order has been
dispensed with. That contention is only to be rejected in view of
the provisions contained in GO(MS) No.13674/D1/2009/F&CSD
dated 08-12-2009, a copy of which has been produced by the
learned Government Pleader.
5. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that at any rate, in view of the provisions under the 1967
Order, on seizure of the goods, the officer could have only stored
the item safely and could not have disposed of the same as
submitted by the learned Government Pleader. However, a
reading of Section 6A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act shows
that if the material seized is a perishable one, it is within the power
of the respondents to dispose of the same, in the manner
WPC.26898/10
: 3 :
prescribed. Therefore, this contention also lacks merit.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the seizure of the
goods as per Ext.P5 needs to be upheld and I do so.
7. Be that as it may, the learned Government Pleader
points points out that the matter is now pending consideration
before the second respondent. In that view of the matter, it is for
the District Collector to complete the adjudication as contemplated
under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. This, the
District Collector shall do in accordance with law and with notice to
the petitioner, within three months from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment.
8. All other contentions of the petitioner on merits are left
open.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge