IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2118 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- EDAKKALATHUR CHITTIES AND LOANS PVT. LTD., PALLITHAMAM SHOPPING COMPLEX, NORTH BUS STAND, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER - K.B.RAJENDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 6. SATHEESH P.V., PROPRIETOR, STAR TRADERS, X/171, MUNDOOR P.O., THRISSUR. 7. COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 8. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.2118 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submit that they are the owners of lorry bearing registration No.KL-8F/7434. It is stated that the 6th respondent took the vehicle on hire on 28.9.2006 and used for transportation of wheat. The 5th respondent seized the vehicle and the wheat alleging violation of the provisions contained in the Rationing Order and the Essential Commodities Act. While the proceedings were thus pending, the truck was released to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee. 2. In the meanwhile the proceedings were continued and by Ext.P9 order the first respondent confiscated the lorry. Petitioners filed an appeal before the 7th respondent and that was rejected by Ext.P10 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P10 petitioner filed a revision before the 8th respondent WP(C).No.2118/09 2 and that was also rejected by Ext.P13. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings the writ petition is filed. 3. A reading of Ext.P10 order passed by the 7th respondent and Ext.P13 order passed by the 8th respondent reveals that these are not speaking orders and no reason stated in these orders to justifying confirmation of Ext.P9 order passed by the District Collector. For that reason itself, these orders deserve to be set aside and I do so. 4. Accordingly, the matter will stand remitted to the 7th respondent who shall reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioners against Ext.P9 order passed by the first respondent with notice to them and pass fresh orders. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, it is ordered that on the petitioner keeping the bank guarantee alive, the petitioner will be permitted to retain the truck, pending finalization of the proceedings. WP(C).No.2118/09 3 Petitioner shall produce a coy of the judgment before the respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(C).No.2118/09 4