IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33383 of 2006(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KIZHAKKEKARA RUBBER TRADERS, KALAYANTHANI P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR JOHNY GEORGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RUBBER BOARD, P.B.NO.1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM- 686 002. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, RUBBER BOARD, P.B.NO.1122, KOTTAYAM. 3. OSHAN TREADS LIMITED, KARIMPARA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.V.RAJAN, PUTHUPPALAYIL, VADAKKAN PALAKUZHA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1&R2 SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R1&R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DT.15.6.94 ISSUED BY R1. P2: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.25.10.06 ISSUED BY R2. P3: TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE BILL DT.24.11.03. P4: .DO. DT.8.12.03. P5: .DO. DT.17.12.03. P6: TRUE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2 DT.2.11.06. P7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.29.11.06 ISSUED BY R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.33383 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 whereunder the Rubber Board proposed penal action against the petitioner including demand of rubber cess for sale of rubber to an unlicensed manufacturer who is the third respondent herein. The petitioner admitted the transactions of sale of rubber to the third respondent who has issued purchase bills which are produced as Exts.P3, P4 and P5 which obviously do not cover the entire quantity found sold by the petitioner to unlicensed manufacturer. The contention of the Rubber Board is that three is violation of condition of licence by the petitioner. However, petitioner's case is that the purchaser misled him giving purchase bills with licence number and petitioner sold rubber believing the contents of the purchase bill including licence held by the third respondent as valid. If there is violation of licence condition, then Rubber Board is free to proceed against the licencee. However, it is strange that Rubber Board has not chosen to take any action against a person who is running a manufacturing unit without a licence, if he is required to do so. 2 Suspension of licence is no punishment against a wrongdoer because if he is allowed to do business even after suspension of licence, then Rubber Board's inability to prevent statutory violation is made clear. Rubber Board could not take any action including fine or prosecution. In the circumstances, W.P. is allowed vacating the order against petitioner, but with direction to the Rubber Board to look into the scheme of licensing and the Rubber Board is given freedom to take action against the petitioner as well as against the third respondent after issuing notice to them. The amount paid under interim order namely, Rs.10,000/- will be adjusted after final adjudication is ordered on the liability for cess, which in any case will be payable either by the petitioner or by the third respondent. If petitioner is not found liable for any amount, the amount paid by the petitioner will be refunded. The Rubber Board is directed to take a final decision within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms