IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36628 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- RUBY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD., IDUSTRIAL ESTATE, EDAKULANGARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS FACTORY MANAGER DEVA PANICKAR. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.NAVEEN SHERRY LUKOSE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 4. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.36628/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DT 17.4.08. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DT 24.4.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 23.5.08 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 6.5.08 IN WPC 13935/08 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT 17.7.08 IN WPC NO.21515/08 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 9.7.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.CS.10.1772/2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILEDBEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 21.7.08. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 25.9.08 DISMISSING WPC 22307/08 AS WITHDRAWN. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 31.10.08 NO.G.O(RT) 387/2008/F&CSD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DT 21.11.2008. EXT.P10(a): A READABLE COPY OF EXT.P10. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 28.11.2008 NO.A3.2047/08 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 36628 OF 2008 (I) ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P9 is the order passed by the 1st respondent in an appeal filed by the petitioner arising out of the proceedings resulting in the seizure of a consignment of wheat. 2. The appeal was disposed of by the Government by Ext.P9 order with the following directions. Government have examined the case in detail and are pleased to order as follows. The sealed bags may be got verified by the District Collector, Kollam to check if FCI flap is available inside. If so, the same may be confiscated. If there is no conclusive proof to establish that it is PDS wheat, the seized wheat may be released on bank guarantee to M/s.Ruby Roller Flour Mills(P) Limited, till the prosecution steps are finalized. District Collector will issue necessary orders after verification. The earlier order issued by the Collector is set aside. 3. It can be seen from the above that all that the District Collector has been ordered to do is to check if FCI flap is available inside the wheat bag and if the FCI flap is absent, to release the wheat to the petitioner on bank guarantee. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding that portion of the WPC 36628/08 :2 : order which requires him to furnish bank guarantee for releasing the wheat even if it is found to be not FCI wheat. In pursuance to Ext.P9, the stock was verified and Ext.P10 is the report. A reading of the report shows that there was no FCI flap inside the wheat bags. If that be so, the wheat is to be released to the petitioner. 5. As far as the direction in Ext.P9 to furnish bank guarantee is concerned, although the learned Government Pleader sought time for filing a counter affidavit, I do not think that there is any justification in the request that is again made today. This is for the reason that in Ext.P9, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner is likely to be made liable for any monetary liability, in which event only, a direction to furnish bank guarantee can be justified. In the absence of any such finding in Ext.P9 and in the absence of any FCI flap in the wheat tag, it obviously means that the wheat belongs to the petitioner. In such a situation, the direction in Ext.P9 requiring the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee is totally unwarranted and Ext.P9 to the extent it requires the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee is quashed. Consequently, Ext.P11 issued by the Taluk Supply Officer requiring the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee will also stand set aside. It is directed that on production of a copy of the WPC 36628/08 :3 : judgment, the wheat in question shall be released to the petitioner without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp