IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19720 of 2009(Q) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KORATH GEORGE KUTTY, AGED 65, S/O.LATE KORATH, ALUMMUTTIL THEKKATHIL, KOMALLUR MURI, CHUNNAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.BENO RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE. ALAPPUZHA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE. KURATHIKAD POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. B. VINOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.C.NO. 19720 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 6th August 2009 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to return the goods seized under Ext.P1 to the petitioner and to take a decision in Ext.P8 after affording an opportunity. Ext.P8 is a petition which according to the petitioner was submitted to the District Collector on 9/7/2009 for return of the articles seized. Case of the petitioner is that rice seized and produced before the District Collector are articles purchased by the petitioner as a whole sale dealer and they are not ration articles and in such circumstances, petitioner is entitled to get the rice back. Learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P8 petition was not received by the District Collector and articles seized under Ext.P1 are ration articles which were found at the car porch of the residence of the petitioner and in such circumstances, they were seized and WPC 19720/09 2 subsequently articles were distributed and in such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get them back. 2. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the articles seized were purchased by the petitioner evidenced by the bills produced in the writ petition, it is not for this court to conduct factual enquiry and find out the identity of the articles. When the articles already seized by the District Collector, no writ of mandamus could be issued, as sought for, to the return the goods seized under Ext.P1 to the petitioner. When it is the case of respondents that original of Ext.P8 was not received by the District Collector, no direction could also be issued to dispose Ext.P8. As the articles seized were reportedly disposed, petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for its value and damages under civil law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.