IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24729 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.P.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT KARIPPULLIL, POST VANIMEL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VATAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. M.C. VALSARAJ, RATIONING INSPECTOR, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, VATAKARA P.O.,KOZHIKODE DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24729/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCEISSUED BY THE MANIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE VAT REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT OF RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DATED 31.7.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE LIST DATED 2.8.2007. EXTS. OR R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.SO1488(E) DATED 31.8.2007. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 2.8.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24729 OF 2007 (R) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he has established a Food Processing Unit manufacturing rice powder, wheat powder, curry powder etc. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P1 licence and Ext.P2 certificate of registration, for manufacturing purposes, he purchased 60 bags of wheat from a dealer at Mahe by name Aiswarya Traders. Petitioner states that accordingly the wheat was transported to his godown and immediately thereafter, the premises were inspected by the Tahsildar and other authorities. On inspection, they found in the godown 60 bags of wheat acquired by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 and in Ext.P4 mahazar, the same has been mentioned. It is stated that immediately thereafter, without any provocation whatsoever, the premises were again inspected on 2/8/07 and the 60 bags of wheat mentioned above was seized as per Ext.P5. It was thereupon that the petitioner approached this Court and filed this writ petition challenging the seizure of the goods as per Ext.P5. 2. At the stage of admission, this Court passed an interim WPC 24729/07 :2 : order clarifying that if ultimately the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings, he would be entitled to the market value of the wheat in question. 3. The stand taken by respondents 3 and 5 in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf, is that the petitioner was not licenced to store the commodity in question and that his theory of having purchased the wheat from M/s.Aiswarya Traders, Mahe is unbelievable as the dealership had become defunct as early as in 2000 itself. 4. Although both sides have raised several contentions in justification of the respective stands taken by both of them, in my view, at this stage, what is required to be done is that since the seizure is under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the authorities should complete the proceedings as contemplated under Section 6A of the said Act. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to complete the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 in respect of 60 bags of wheat seized on the premises of the petitioner as per Ext.P5 dated 2/8/07. This shall be done by issuing show cause as provided in Section 6B of WPC 24729/07 :3 : the Essential Commodities Act and shall be completed with opportunity to the petitioner. It is directed that such proceedings shall be initiated and completed as expeditiously as possible, in the manner as stated above, at any rate within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that if ultimately the petitioner succeeds, as clarified by this Court in the order dated 21/08/2007, the petitioner shall be reimbursed the market value of the wheat seized from his premises. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp