IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 192 of 2009(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, SRI SASTHA RICE MILL, KARINGARAPPILLI.P.O, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.(RESIDING AT D.NO.6, DHANYASHREE, FRIENDS COLONY, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD) 2. LIJU.P.P, PROPRIETOR, LIJU TRADERS, 8/814,KARINGARAPPILLI.P.O, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, MR.S.VASUDEVAN, SMT.MANJULA NAIR, SMT.LAILA SUNIL, SMT.LALY M.BASHEER. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.192 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are two whole sale dealers of rice and paddy. The first petitioner had dealers licence granted under the Kerala Food Grain Dealers Licensing Order, 1961 (KFDL Order). By Exhibit P2 order, that requirement was dispensed with, but however, was reinstated as is seen in Exhibits P3 and P4 orders. 2. According to the petitioners, in view of Exhibits P3 and P4, first petitioner had applied for licence by submitting Exhibit P5 dated 3/05/2008 and the second petitioner submitted Exhibit P5(a) dated 5/05/2008. Petitioners submit that they did not have any uncounted stock of rice and that whatever stock they held was reflected in the stock registers maintained by them. 3. According to the petitioners, on 5/05/2008, the police raided their godowns and arrested the second petitioner and seized goods from the godowns of both the petitioners. Here , I should mention that, there is a dispute regarding the date on which the raid was conducted. According to respondents raid W.P.(C) No.192 / 2009 2 was conducted on 3/05/2008, where as petitioners contend that it was on 5/05/2008.The petitioners seek to prove that raid was conducted on 5/05/2008 by referring to Exhibits P17 to P20 and P22, documents such as FIR, Search list, remand application, Mahzar,Kychit and final report. 4. It is stated that on seizure of the goods, they filed Exhibit P9 application before the District Collector seeking its release. Orders were not passed. In the meantime, since orders were not passed on the licence applications made by them also, they approached this Court complaining of delay, by filing W.P (C). No. 17969/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P11 judgment, directing that orders be passed on applications for licence within a period of two weeks. It was also directed that , it will be open to the respondents to inspect the business premises of the petitioners, but no action shall be taken on the ground that the petitioners have not yet been issued licences, provided they comply with the other directions in the judgment. 5. It is stated that despite the directions issued by this W.P.(C) No.192 / 2009 3 Court vide Exhibit P11 judgment, they were issued Exhibits P13 and P13 (a) Show Cause Notices, calling upon to show cause why the goods seized should not be confiscated. Petitioners replied to the Show Cause notices by filing Exhibit P14 and P14 (a) replies. 6. At that stage, the District Collector passed Exhibit P15 order, rejecting Exhibit P5 and P5(a) applications made by the petitioners for licences under the KFDL Orders, stating that in view of pendency of the Criminal proceedings, the request cannot be considered. It is challenging Exhibit P15, this writ petition has been filed. 7. Statement filed by the respondents on the other hand would show that the stock seized from the business premises of the petitioners was uncounted stocks. According to them, the raid was on 3/05/2008 and even according to the second petitioner, the application for licence was made only on 5/05/2008. In order to support their plea that it was on 3/5/2008 that the raid was conducted, the respondents are relying on Exhibits R4(a) and R4(b) applications made by the petitioners seeking release of the stock seized, where they themselves have said that the raid was W.P.(C) No.192 / 2009 4 on 3/05/2008. 8. From the above narration of facts, it is therefore evident that no final order has been passed in pursuance to Exhibits P13 and P13(a) show cause notices for confiscation which were issued by District Collector, while at the same, Exhibit P22 final report has been filed before the Criminal court. 9. As already noticed, Exhibit P15 order has been passed on Exhibit P9, where the petitioners sought release of the goods. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that they have produced copies of stock register and other registers before the District Collector in support of their contention that the entire stock was an accounted one. On the other hand Exhibit P15 order passed by the District Collector proceeded on the basis that the stock was unaccounted. A reading of Exhibit P15 also shows that no reference is seen made to the documents, which are stated to have been produced by the petitioners justifying the stock in question. If documents were produced, Exhibit P15 order has been passed without reference to those documents. If so, for the reason that Exhibit P15 has been passed without reference to W.P.(C) No.192 / 2009 5 such relevant documents produced by the petitioner, I feel it is only appropriate that the District Collector should reconsider Exhibit P9. In order to enable the District Collector to reconsider the matter, I quash Exhibit P15. 10. In so far as, Exhibits P13 and P13(a) Show Cause Notices are concerned the result of the enquiry following Exhibit P15 will, necessarily, have an impact upon the out come of the enquiry into the Show Cause notices and orders to be passed by the District Collector. Therefore, Once order is passed on Exhibit P9 referring to the documents produced, orders shall passed on Exhibits P13, P13(a) in the light of Exhibits P14 and P14(a) replied filed by the petitioners. 11. Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment before the District Collector, who shall reconsider the matter as directed above with notice to the petitioners and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of copy of this judgment. Necessarily, the aforesaid enquiry and its outcome will have an impact on the criminal case also. Therefore,It is directed W.P.(C) No.192 / 2009 6 that in the meanwhile further proceedings pursuant to C.C. No.141/2008, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad will be kept in abeyance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm