IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5166 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAMEER, S/O.YUSUF, 28 YEARS, PADINJAREVEETTIL PUZHAKKAPPALLY, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES(D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.5166 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13. By this order issued by the 2nd respondent, Ext.P11 appeal filed by the petitioner, against Ext.P9 order passed by the District Collector confiscating the vehicle and 4000 Kg. wheat, has been rejected, for the reason that there was one day's delay in receiving the appeal. 2. Facts of the case are that, consequent on the seizure of 4000Kg. wheat while the same was transported in a Mini Lorry belonging to the petitioner. Proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act were initiated by the first respondent. Finally by Ext.P9 the first respondent ordered confiscation of the lorry and also to invoke the bank guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings in order to get the wheat released. WP(c).No.5166/09 2 3. Ext.P9 order was challenged in WP(c).No.29400/08 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment dated 7.10.2008. Taking note of the availability of the alternate remedy, this court relegated the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy and it was directed that the petitioner may file an appeal on or before 20.102008. Petitioner submits that, although the appellate authority is the 3rd respondent, in the judgment this court inadvertently mentioned that the appeal may be filed before the Government. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is the appellate authority and he filed appeal to the 3rd respondent who taking note of Ext.P10 judgment, forwarded Ext.P11 appeal to the 2nd respondent. It is stated that it is thereupon the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P13 order rejecting the appeal, mainly for the reason that the same was received one day late. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Evidently, the appellate authority is none other than the 3rd respondent. It was therefore that the petitioner filed Ext.P11 appeal before the 3rd respondent. In my view the statement in Ext.P10 judgment that WP(c).No.5166/09 3 the appeal may be filed before the Government is an inadvertent mistake and it ought to have been the 3rd respondent before whom the appeal was actually filed. If so reckoned, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P13 and directing the petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent and thereupon he shall consider Ext.P11 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P9 order passed by the first respondent. An order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Taking into account the fact that Ext.P9 order has not been implemented by confiscating the vehicle and invoking the bank guarantee, status quo as on date shall be maintained and the petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee alive until the disposal of Ext.P11 appeal. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/