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. 15013 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. P.X.JOSEPH, RICE MERCHANT, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 2. M/S. P.X.JOSEPH & SONS, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.BENNY JOSEPH. 3. S.PRASANNAN, RICE MERCHANT, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 4. M/S. VIMAL TRADERS, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.M.J.JOSEPH. 5. V.N.HARALAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S. VALLANTHAIEL TRADE LINKS, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 6. SOBY JOSEPH, RICE MERCHANT, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 7. M/S. V.V.SUKUMARAN, C/O. MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. S.SHABU. 8. K.J.JOHN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. K.T.J.SONS, NORTH BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 9. M/S. AMBADY TRADING COMPANY, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. HARI KRISHNAN. 10. V.D.LAIJU, PROPRIETOR, M/S. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TRADING COMPANY, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 11. K.J.PAULOSE, RICE MERCHANT, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 12. G.RAMACHANDRA PRABHU, RICE MERCHANT, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. WP(C).No. 15013 of 2008 13. R.ANANDA KAMATH, RICE MERCHANT, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 14. M/S. V.K.RADHA & COMPANY, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SMT. V.K.RADHA. 15. M/S. RADHA & SONS, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. M.S.ANILKUMAR. 16. M/S. LAKSHMI STORES, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, G.JYOTHI LAKSHMI. 17. C.K.GANGADHARAN, RICE MERCHANT, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 18. JACOB CHERIAN, VEGETABLE STALL NO.2, MUNICIPAL MARKETING COMPLEX, CHERTHALA. 19. S.RETNABAI, RICE MERCHANT, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 20. K.J.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, M/S. S & J TRADERS, MUTTAM BAZAR, CHERTHALA. 21. M/S. R.ANANTHA KAMATH, T.D.ROAD, CHERTHALA, REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. R.ANANTHA KAMATH. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ALLEPPEY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17969 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15013 of 2008 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER GSR 104(E) DATED 15.02.2002 AS AMENDED BY GSR 490(C) DATED 16.07.2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AS AVAILABLE IN THE WEB SITE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.(CS)A1-2007/2008(1) DATED 8.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM AS APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 9.5.2008. 3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 7-4-2008. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.4.2008. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.15013 & 17969 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The question involved in these two writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners are liable to take out licence under the Removal of (Licensing Requirements Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions) on specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002. Their contention is that rice is not a commodity coming within the purview of the said order and therefore, they are not liable to take out licence under that Order. Their grievance is that despite the said situation, the respondents have been harassing the petitioner on the ground that they are liable to take out licence under the Order. However, in view of Ext.R3(a) produced along with the statement filed in W.P.(C) No.15013/08, it is no longer disputed before me that the petitioners are liable to take out licence under that Order. But they point out that even under Ext.R3(a), they are liable to take out licence only for the period of one year as stipulated in Ext.R3(a) itself. W.P.(c)No.15013/08 & con.case 2 2. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17969/08 submit that they have already applied for licence as per Exts.P5 and P5(a). The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.15013/08 submits that all the petitioners except petitioners 8 and 11 had earlier been conducting business on the basis of valid licences in respect of which they have already furnished security deposits which are still with the authorities and therefore, they may be permitted to take out licence after paying the licence fees. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: The applications for licence, if not already filed, shall be filed within one week. The competent among respondents shall consider the applications for licence to be filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.15013/08 and the applications already filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17969/08, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the applications from the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.15013/08 and within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in respect of the petitioners in the other writ petition. The security deposit, if any, already deposited by any of the petitioners in respect of earlier licence, which is still remaining W.P.(c)No.15013/08 & con.case 3 as deposit shall be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the security deposit for the licence to be issued. If occasion arises, it would be open to the respondents to inspect the business premises of the petitioners, but no action shall be taken on the ground that they have not been yet issued with licences, provided they comply with the above directions. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.15013/08 & con.case 4