IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16821 of 2011(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- SHIHABUDEEN, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY MUSLIYAR, AGED 30 YEARS, KALATHINKAL AGENCIES, PADMAVATHY RICE MILL, KINASSERRY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PINCODE - 678 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, PINCODE - 678 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PINCODE - 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 16821 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LICENCE NO. 14/2008-2009 ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER 2008 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 20.06.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 ORDER BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE OF PALAKKAD. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16821 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to the inspection conducted by the 2nd respondent in the petitioner's premises, 46 tons of rice was confiscated by Ext.P2 order passed by the District Collector and penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the State Government. It was thereafter that this writ petition was filed for an expeditious disposal of the appeal. 2. When the case came up for consideration, learned Government Pleader disputed the maintainability of the appeal contending that an appeal is maintainable only before the District and Sessions Court. In view of the objection so raised, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District and Sessions Court, Palakkad, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Court doubted the maintainability W.P.(C) No. 16821 OF 2011 :2 : of the appeal and returned it by its order dated 6.7.2011. It is while so the case is coming up for hearing. 3. As far as the maintainability of the appeal before the District and Sessions Court is concerned, that is an issue which is already dealt with by this court vide order in R.P.60/2010, where it has been held as follows. “In this Review Petition, learned Government Pleader contend that Ext.P11 appeal filed before the Government was not maintainable and, therefore, the direction for the disposal of the said appeal is erroneous and should be reviewed. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act provides for appeal before a judicial authority. It is pointed out that under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, Section 6C was amended and the State Government was conferred with the appellate power. Learned Government Pleader referred to Section 1(3) of the said Act and W.P.(C) No. 16821 OF 2011 :3 : contended that from 1996, the 1981 Act stood repealed and hence the judicial authority has again become the Appellate Authority. Referring to notification No.1500/B3/68/Fd.D dated 9.8.1968, learned Government Pleader submits that the District and Sessions Judge has been designated as the judicial authority having appellate power under Section 6C of the Act. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, appeal filed before the Government was not maintainable and it ought to have been filed before the District and Sessions court concerned and consequently a direction for the disposal of Ext.P11 appeal is erroneous. The legal position canvassed by the learned Government Pleader is rightly not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Obviously therefore, the direction for the disposal of Ext.P11 appeal which is not maintainable in law cannot be sustained.” W.P.(C) No. 16821 OF 2011 :4 : 4. In the light of the aforesaid order, the District Court is liable to entertain the appeal. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to represent the appeal before the District and Sessions Court along with a copy of this judgment. It is directed that if the appeal is resubmitted within 15 days from today the same will be entertained and dealt with on merits. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-