IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 413 of 2009() -------------------- {IN WPC.37892/2008 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHERTHALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: 1. MANZOOR, PADINJARETTAYYIL HOUSE, P.O.ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 2. SHAJAHAN, S/O.ISMAIL, PADIPURAKKAL VADAKKATHIL,, NEAR FIRE STATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 3. ASHRAF, VALIYAVEETTIL, KIZHAKKATHIL, NEAR M.S.M COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.M.V.BOSE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ----------------------------------------- W.A.No.413 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT GIRI, J. The respondents in W.P.(C)No.37892/08, which was allowed by the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment, are the appellants herein. 2. The writ petitioners challenged Ext.P7 order of confiscation passed by the District Collector, confiscating 2000 litres of Kerosene, purchased under the public distribution system from an Authorised Wholesale Distributor, allegedly for fishing purposes. The first petitioner is a fisherman. Under Ext.P1 permit, he had obtained kerosene, for being used as a fuel in his fishing boat. Fourteen other fishermen, according to him, armed with similar permits, obtained different quantities of kerosene for similar purposes. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P2 series invoices issued by the wholesale dealer of kerosene. The purchase W.A.No.413 of 2009 :: 2 :: of 2000 litres, altogether by these 15 permit holders, was effected on 25.10.2008 and the consignment was being transported in 10 barrels in a Mini lorry. They were intercepted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Mararikulam, who seized the same on suspicion that the kerosene was procured and being transported in violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act (for short “the Act'}. 3. The first petitioner approached this court in W.P.(C) No.33367/08, in which also a contention raised was that the consignment as a whole belongs to 15 permit holders and the first petitioner was only representing them. A learned single Judge of this court, by Ext.P4 judgment, directed the District Collector to take a final decision in the matter. 4. The District Collector issued a notice to the first petitioner, as also the owner and driver of the vehicle, viz., petitioners 2 and 3. In the course of enquiry, the salesman employed in the wholesale dealer's shop M/s.M.S.Abraham was also examined. The salesman deposed that kerosene was sold W.A.No.413 of 2009 :: 3 :: under 15 different permits to 15 different fishermen and affirmed the authenticity of Ext.P2 series invoices. The stand taken by the petitioners was that the fishermen, who had harboured their vessels in Mararikulam, were transporting their purchases under one consignment for the sake of convenience. The purchase was effected from an Authorised Wholesale Dealer against invoices. Therefore, no contravention of the provisions of the Act is involved. 5. The District Collector declined to accept the explanation and proceeded to hold in Ext.P7 order that the transportation from Karthikappally Taluk to Arthunkal where the consignment was intercepted was not authorised. The District Collector therefore proceeded to hold that the petitioners were guilty and also imposed a fine on them. Ext.P7 order was challenged before the learned single Judge. 6. The learned single Judge noted that no provision was brought to the notice of the learned Judge requiring a permit for transportation of kerosene. It was further noted that the only W.A.No.413 of 2009 :: 4 :: reason stated in Ext.P7 for ordering confiscation is that the transportation of kerosene from Karthikappally to Arthunkal was without any permit. 7. Though in the counter affidavit filed, a contention was taken up that the kerosene was being transported for disposal in the black market, learned single Judge rightly noted that there is no such finding in Ext.P5. It is on the said premise that Ext.P7 order was quashed and a direction was given to release the kerosene to the concerned permit holders on their production of the permits. The District Collector and the Taluk Supply Officer have challenged the said finding of the learned single Judge. 8. We heard learned counsel for the appellants. 9. Learned single Judge had rightly noted that the transportation of kerosene from Karthikappally, from where the purchase is effected to Mararikulam, where the fishing boats of 15 fishermen were stated to be harboured, by itself will not contravene the provisions of the Act. The 15 different permits, against which the purchases were claimed to have been effected, W.A.No.413 of 2009 :: 5 :: were produced before the District Collector. The invoices, against which the sales were effected, were produced and proved by the salesman of the wholesale depot. The register maintained in the Authorised Wholesale Distributor was also produced. The authenticity of the consignment was, therefore, proved. Once the legitimacy of the purchase from the authorised wholesale dealer was proved, and the existence of 15 different permits held by 15 fishermen is also proved, then the transportation of the consignment, as such, will not result in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or an order issued thereunder. 10. In these circumstances, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the confiscation of the consignment under Ext.P7 order was unjustified. We are also in agreement with the finding of the learned single Judge that the stand sought to be taken that the large consignment of 2000 litres of kerosene was meant to be sold in the black market, did not merit acceptance especially because there is no such finding in Ext.P7 order. We take note of the fact W.A.No.413 of 2009 :: 6 :: that there is no such allegation in Ext.P5 notice issued to the petitioners. 11. In these circumstances, we find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. We affirm the same. But, it is made clear that the kerosene, which has been seized from the petitioners, will be distributed to the individual 15 permit holders, on each of them producing the individual permit, along with the invoice issued from the shop of the wholesale dealer, as already directed by the learned single Judge. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge