IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26639 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.AYISHA HAJUMMA, W/O.LATE K.M.MOHAMMED KUNJI, POONKAVANAM MANZIL, ATHINJAL, P.O.MANIKOTH, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SMT.JANCY ALEX RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR, KASARAGOD. 2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, M.V.SQUARE, KASARAGOD. 3. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY. 4. THE SECRETARY, KODAMBELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY GOVT. PLEADER SI. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 26639 of 2008 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a woman, has come to this court on receipt of Ext.P3 notice under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act. Her husband was a licensee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He expired on 26.12.2007 when he was on a Haj pilgrimage. Subsequent to his death, it is the case of the petitioner that she has nothing to do with the conduct of the business in the licensed premises, which belonged to her husband. Long later, she applied for and obtained licence to continue the business which her husband was earlier running. The licence has been granted for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. 2. In the meantime a sample was drawn by the Food Inspector of an article of food which was allegedly manufactured in the establishment run by her husband till his death. According to the petitioner, she has nothing to do with the running of the W.P.C.No. 26639 of 2008 2 business during the period 26.12.2007 to 31.3.2008. During that period some others were in charge of the conduct of the business. She does not, in these circumstances, deserve to stand trial. 3. The crucial question is whether the petitioner, the legal heir of the deceased and who had taken licence for the subsequent period, was actually in charge of the business during the relevant period of time. At this stage in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not possible for this court to resolve such intrinsic and delicate questions of fact. Without expressing any opinion on the acceptability of the allegations against the petitioner or the assertions of the petitioner, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be relegated to raise all her contentions before the trial court in the course of trial. Ext.P3 notice shows clearly that the prosecution has already been launched before the C.J.M., Kasargode. 4. This writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm