IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 8503 of 2008(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- T.D.VARGHESE, S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 49 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, STAR MODERN RICE MILL, KALADY KANJOOR, PIN-683575 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.X.XAVIER SRI.K.BAIJU SMT.N.S.SUMI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 8503 OF 2008 K ==================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner complains that the 3rd respondent has seized 23.190 metric tons of raw rice from the godown maintained by them. Ext.P1 is the mahazar that was prepared at the time of seizure which gives the details of the seizure effected. Petitioner contends that the rice seized was raw rice available in the open market and has been purchased by him under Exts. P2 to P4 bills. It is his further contention that there is no requirement of any licence for purchase or storage of raw rice that is seized. 2. Be that as it may, it is obvious that the seizure could only be on the allegation of violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. In terms of the provisions under the said Act, once seizure has been effected as in this case, it is for the 1st respondent to decide on this matter. Since the 1st respondent has not decided the issue in dispute, I think it is premature for considering the contentions that are urged before this court and at this stage what is required to be done is to direct the 1st respondent to decide the matter finally. I have no doubt that WPC 8503/08 :2 : in the course of the adjudication, the 1st respondent will also decide on the applicability of the provisions of the E.C. Act itself, which is disputed by the petitioner. 3. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, give him an opportunity to make his representations, hear him in the matter and decide on the correctness of the seizure effected as per Ext.P1 mahazar. The process as above shall be completed by the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. It is directed that until orders are passed as above, interim order dated 13/3/2008 directing that the stock of rice seized shall not be disposed of will continue. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp