High Court Kerala High Court

Kuzhikkattil Abbas Ali vs The District Collector on 11 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Kuzhikkattil Abbas Ali vs The District Collector on 11 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4413 of 2009(A)


1. KUZHIKKATTIL ABBAS ALI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

3. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/02/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                W.P.(C.) Nos.4413 & 4436 of 2009
             ---------------------------------
           Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in these writ petitions are wholesale dealers of

rice and other food articles.

2. According to them, the Civil Supplies authorities

conducted inspection of their premises on 07/01/2009. As far as

the petitioner in WP(C) No.4413/2009 is concerned, according to

him, 70 bags of rice have been seized, and in so far as the petitioner

in WP(C) No.4436/2009 is concerned, it is stated that 25 bags of rice

have been seized. Consequent on this, proceedings initiated under

the Essential Commodities Act are pending before the 1st

respondent.

3. In the meanwhile, on the ground that the rice in question

will be deteriorated, the petitioners have sought release of the rice

by filing Ext.P5 applications. The petitioners state that orders have

not been passed by the 1st respondent on the applications thus filed

by them. In these writ petitions, all what they seek is an order

requiring the 1st respondent, District Collector, to consider and pass

WP(C) No.4413 & 4436/2009
-2-

orders on the requests so made by them for release of the rice.

4. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings are

pending before the 1st respondent before whom the petitioners have

filed Ext.P5 applications seeking release of the rice seized from their

premises, I direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P5 applications stated to have been made by the petitioners.

This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within

three weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with

copies of these writ petitions.

These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg