IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 174 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36364/2009 Dated 23/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- BIJU.V., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYACHANDRAN VIJAYAGIRI, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.SOORYA TRADERS, (MARGIN FREE MARKET), KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.174/2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P4 mahazar, seizing 1200 Kgms. of sugar kept by him in his godown, by the Taluk Supply Officer, Kollam. The sugar was seized on the ground that he has stocked the same without any licence or authorisation. The appellant submits, he has all the requisite licences and therefore, without any justification the seizure has been made. He also filed Ext.P7 representation, pointing out these facts, before the District Collector. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, directing the competent authority to consider Ext.P7. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 2. We notice that it is for the Taluk Supply Officer to take a decision at the first instance, taking note of the objection, if WA No.174/2010 - 2 - any, filed by the appellant as, according to the appellant, the very basis for Ext.P4 is unsound and illegal, as he is having all the requisite licences. If that be so, the appellant may, along with a copy of this judgment, file his objections before the 4th respondent Taluk Supply Officer. In that event, the said officer shall hear the appellant and take a decision in accordance with law within one week from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the 4th respondent, he may work out his remedy against it. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.