IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22817 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BIJU SEBASTIN, P.L.TRADERS, MARKET ROAD, CHANGANASSERY, BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHANGANACHERRY. BY SMT.SUDHADEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22817 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a wholesale food grain dealer. Apparently, in the course of his business, he procures rice from the open market, within and outside the State. On 15.7.2008, respondents 2 and 3 along with certain other officials inspected petitioner's premises and seized 122 quintals of boiled rice and 32.25 quintals of raw rice. Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared. It is the petitioner's contention that he has all along maintained true and correct accounts in the course of his business for the sales and purchase effected by him, till the date of seizure. Petitioner further submits that all the stock in the petitioner's premises are supported by purchase bills and invoices, affirming that the same was not ration rice, but rice otherwise procured from legitimate sources. It is his further case that, therefore, proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act or under the Rationing Order were misconceived. The writ petition was filed at a point of time when W.P.(C) No.22817 of 2008 2 the respondents were proposing to sell the seized stock in auction. Petitioner also apprehended an obstruction to the conduct of his business. 2. A statement has been filed by the respondents supporting the action taken by the authorities. 3. I heard Sri.Mayankutty Mather, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequently the seized stock has been auctioned and it has been distributed also. Though the shop was originally closed, pursuant to the seizure, conduct of business by the petitioner is now not restrained. Seizure alone is not contemplated by the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. If there is an infraction of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or the Rationing Order, then the competent authority will have to conclude the proceedings under Section 6A W.P.(C) No.22817 of 2008 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Obviously, at the conclusion of such proceedings, if it is found that the seized stock is not liable for confiscation, then the value of the articles seized from the petitioner's custody is liable to be returned to him. 5. This submission is obviously correct. It is necessary that the District Collector concludes the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to issue notice to the petitioner in terms of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, detailing the grounds on which the goods seized from the petitioner's custody on 15.7.2008 was otherwise liable for confiscation. Such notice shall be issued within three weeks from today. Petitioner shall be given sufficient opportunity to file objections and establish that the goods seized were procured from licenced dealers or from other legitimate sources, and was not ration rice, and, therefore, not vulnerable to be seized or otherwise proceeded against under the provisions of the Essential W.P.(C) No.22817 of 2008 4 Commodities Act or the Rationing Order. The District Collector shall pass final orders under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, after dealing with the objections of the petitioner, within one month from he date on which objection is submitted by the petitioner. If the District Collector finds that the goods seized from the petitioner's custody are not liable for confiscation, then contemporaneous orders should also be passed for release of the value of the goods seized from the petitioner to him without further delay. V. GIRI, JUDGE nj.