IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 29688 of 2007(H)
1. P.A.VARGHESE,S/O. ANTONY
... Petitioner
2. P.A.PETER, S/O. ANTONY,
Vs
1. GOVT. OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
3. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, ALUVA.
For Petitioner :SRI.AYPE JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 29688 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
This case relates to the seizure of 35 bags of
boiled rice weighing 75 Kgms each. Seizure was on
7.5.1992. The District Collector after enquiry passed
Ext.P4 order on 20.12.1999 rejecting the contentions of
petitioners and ordering confiscation. The said order
was questioned before this court by filing O.P.
2195/2000. The original petition was disposed of on
18th January 2006 directing the petitioners to file an
appeal against Ext.P3 order. Accordingly, an appeal
was filed and by Ext.P6 order dated 9.5.2007, the
appellate authority rejected the appeal and confirmed
Ext.P4 order of confiscation. Though there is no power
conferred on the appellate authority to review this
order, petitioners submitted an application for review.
That was also rejected by Ext.P7 order dated 28.4.07.
This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4, P6 and
P7.
2. As already noted, the issue relates to the
seizure that occurred as early as on 7.5.92. In Ext.P4
order, the 2nd respondent has dealt with the contention
of the petitioner that the rice was sold to Sri. K.R.
WPC NO 29688/07 Page numbers
Mohanan. The appellate authority has noted that the
purchaser had not raised any claim in respect of the
rice seized and that the petitioners had not produced
any valid documentary evidence regarding the
payment/ownership of rice. On this basis, the 2nd
respondent also did not find any merit in the
contention raised. In the appeal, the appellate
authority granted a personal hearing to the petitioner
and holding that even at the appellate stage, the
petitioner could not adduce any satisfactory
explanation to show that the rice was sold to
Sri.Mohanan, appeal was rejected. The review also was
dismissed on rejecting the contentions.
In this writ petition, there is absolutely no
material produced to take a different view on the
factual findings. The findings rendered by the
original as well as the appellate authority do not
warrant any interference on the materials available.
The writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO 29688/07 Page numbers