IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36376 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUB FOOD PRODUCTS, 12/955, HALWA BAZAR, KOZHIKODE REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.PRAMOD.K. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 5. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KASARAGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.36376/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SC/ST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. P2:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.096024 DTD. 9.12.09. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER OF SUPPLYCO DEPOT, KOZHIKODE TO THE PETITIONER ON 7.12.2009. P4:- COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED TO MANGALORE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD., DTD. 10.12.09. P5:- COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE DTD. 10.12.09. P6:- COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 10.12.09 ISSUED TO MANGALORE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD. P7:- COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE. P8;- COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 10.12.09. P9:- COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE. P10:- COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 10.12.09. P11:- COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE. P12:- COPY OF THE MAHAZAR. P13:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.D 14.12.09. P14:- COPY OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE SUPPLYCO DTD. 23.12.09. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36376 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a partnership firm conducting the business of purchasing and selling of rice, wheat, chilly etc. in wholesale. The firm is having CST registration as evidenced by Exhibit P1 Registration Certificate. Under the Open Market Sale Scheme (OMSS for short) introduced by the Civil Supplies Corporation, the petitioner purchased 300 metric tonnes of wheat from the supplyco depot, Kozhikode as per order dated 25.11.2009, which was taken delivery from the FCI, West Hill. Exhibit P2 is the bill evidencing the purchase of wheat. Exhibit P3 is the letter issued by the Assistant Manager of the supplyco depot in that regard. 2. The petitioner despatched 52 metric tonnes out of the above 300 M.T. in four trucks to Mangalore Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. after selling it to them, which is evidenced by Exhibits P4 to P7 bills and delivery notes. It is also stated that another 200 bags were loaded in another vehicle, which is evidenced by W.P.(C) No.36376/2009 2 Exhibits P8 to P10. The vehicles with 52 M.T. of wheat were intercepted by the Taluk Supply Officer at Manjeshwar check post and the same were seized by him on the apprehension that the article is rationed, which is evidenced by Exhibit P12 mahazar. The vehicles are now kept in the Manjeshwar police station along with the load. 3. The petitioner sent a representation to the 3rd respondent requesting to release the wheat and vehicles as per Exhibit P13 and aggrieved by the delay in the matter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for release of the wheat and the vehicles. 4. On behalf of respondents 3 and 4, a counter affidavit has been filed. It is pointed out therein that the OMS Scheme is framed under special guidelines of the Government of India and Exhibits R3(a) and R3(b) have been produced in support of the plea that the wheat can be distributed only in this State. At the time of seizure, the Taluk Supply Officer could not evidently confirm whether it was a rationed article. The matter was reported to the District Collector after seizure. The fact that the W.P.(C) No.36376/2009 3 stock was released to the petitioner by the Assistant Manager of the Civil Supplies Corporation is admitted in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. 5. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that under the OMS Scheme, the wheat should not have been transported out of the State and it should have been distributed here in the State itself. It is also the case of respondents 3 and 4 that at the time of lifting the stock, this was informed to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at that time no such condition was imposed. 6. It is evident from the Scheme that the Central Government introduced the same to check inflationary trends in food economy and the wheat and rice were released under OMS Scheme to State/UT Governments for distribution to retail consumers. Obviously, therefore, it will have to be distributed to retail consumers of the State concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that the petitioner will utilize the quantity for distribution in this State by selling it to consumers in Kerala itself. W.P.(C) No.36376/2009 4 In that view of the matter, if the petitioner files such an affidavit before the District Collector to the effect that the quantity of wheat will be utilized for distribution in the State, the District Collector will direct release of the vehicles along with the wheat to the petitioner for enabling the petitioner to distribute the same in the State of Kerala itself, and on such condition as he deems fit to impose. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp