IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 60 of 2010(M) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5166/2009 Dated 17/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDETS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER,FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SHAMEER, S/O.YOUSUF, AGED 28 YEARS, PAPDINJAREVEETTIL PUHAKKAPPALLY, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.No. 60 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2009 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned Government Pleader and the leaned counsel for the respondent. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 order of confiscation issued under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, respondents filed Ext.P11 appeal before the Government of Kerala. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P13 order. Challenging Ext.P13 order, W.P.(C) No.5166/2009 was filed. By judgment rendered on 17-02-2009, the writ petition was disposed of quashing Ext.P13 and directing reconsideration of Ext.P11 appeal. It was further directed that the respondent shall keep Bank Guarantee on the basis of which the vehicle was released, alive. 3. In this Review Petition, learned Government Pleader contend that Ext.P11 appeal filed before the RP.60/10 : 2 : Government was not maintainable and, therefore, the direction for the disposal of the said appeal is erroneous and should be reviewed. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act provides for appeal before a judicial authority. It is pointed out that under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, Section 6C was amended and the State Government was conferred with the appellate power. Learned Government Pleader referred to Section 1(3) of the said Act and contended that from 1996, the 1981 Act stood repealed and hence the judicial authority has again become the appellate authority. Referring to notification No.1500/B3/68/Fd.D dated 09-08-1968, learned Government Pleader submits that the District and Sessions Judge has been designated as the judicial authority having appellate power under Section 6C of the Act. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, appeal filed before the Government was not maintainable and it ought to have been RP.60/10 : 3 : filed before the District and Sessions Court concerned and consequently a direction for the disposal of Ext.P11 appeal is erroneous. 4. The legal position canvassed by the learned Government Pleader is rightly not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Obviously therefore, the direction for the disposal of Ext.P11 appeal which is not maintainable in law cannot be sustained. However, having regard to the fact that the respondent was prosecuting his case before a wrong authority, which also had entertained the appeal, I feel, respondent should be allowed to prosecute his appeal before th designated judicial authority. Therefore, the judgment disposing of the writ petition is reviewed and in modification thereof, the writ petition will stand disposed of with the following directions:- Ext.P13 order is upheld. However, it will be open to the respondent herein to file appeal before the District and Sessions Court concerned, within four weeks from today. It is RP.60/10 : 4 : directed that if an appeal is filed as above, the same will be entertained and disposed of, provided the Bank Guarantee as ordered originally in the judgment dated 17-02-2009 is furnished to the first review petitioner and kept alive till the disposal of the appeal to be filed. Review Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge