IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22722 of 2008(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.T. THOMAS, MERCHANT, PUNCHATHARA TRADERS, ALACODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, TELLICHERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PREMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.22722 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition filed on 13.10.2006 is coming up for admission today. The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the confiscation of rice seized from the petitioner under the Food Grains Dealer's Licensing Order is sustainable. The petitioner applied for a licence under the Food Grains Dealer's Licensing Order. According to the petitioner, anticipating favourable orders in the application for licence, the petitioner started business and procured rice. The authorities seized the same. While the confiscation proceedings were pending, the rice was released to the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,32,000/-, determined as the value of the same. Subsequently the confiscation proceedings were finalised directing confiscation of the rice. Consequently, the bank guarantee was invoked. The said proceedings are W.P(C)No.22722 of 2008 - 2 - under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Admittedly, at the time when the rice was seized from the petitioner, the petitioner did not have a licence under the Food Grains Dealer's Licensing Order. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now dispute that the action of the respondents was illegal. The fact that the petitioner was anticipating a favourble order in an application for licence is not a valid defence against an action for doing business in rice without a valid licence. That being so, I do no find anything wrong with the orders directing confiscation of the rice. As such, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs