A.ABDUL RASHEED v. STATE OF KERALA

WPC NO.8427/2007APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITSP1 :COPY OF PAY BILL NO.1830 DATED 08/09/1997 TO M/S.SABARIROLLER FLOUR MILLS (PVT) LTD.P2 :COPY OF BILL NO.1831 DATED 08/09/1997 TO SRI.THULASI, RICEMERCHANT, KILIMANOOR.P3 :COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THEDISTRICT COLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DATED 22/09/1997.P4 :COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THEDISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DATED 22/09/1997.P5 :COPY OF ORDER NO.CS6-5421/97 DATED 15/12/1997 ISSUED BY THEDISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM.P6 :COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12/12/2005 IN OP NO.17863 OF 1997-BOF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.P7 :COPY OF APPEAL NO.95 OF 2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPLIES,THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DATED 02/01/2006.P8 :COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE GOODS VEHICLE RECORD DATED08/09/1997.P9 :COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/12/2006 ISSUED BY R1 SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES,THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM.//TRUE COPY//PA TO JUDGE.jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J.------------------WP(C) No.8427 of 2007--------------------------Dated, this the 12th day of October, 2009J U D G M E N TChallenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 proceedings ofthe District Collector dated 15/12/1997 confiscating 42 bags ofwheat as well as vehicle bearing Regn. No.KL-01/B-189 to the Government, and Ext.P9 order dated 27/12/2006 of the Government confirming the same.

The petitioner claims to be the proprietor ofM/s.Soorath Agencies, Chalai, Thiruvanthapuram, engaged inwholesale business of rice and wheat. According to the petitioner, he purchased 42 bags of wheat under Exts.P1 & P2, and wastransporting the same in his vehicle bearing Regn. No.KL-01/B-189.It is stated that the vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, on the allegation that the transportation was unauthorised, in as much as it was not accompanied by any documents justifyingprocurement and transportation. According to the petitioner, though he produced Exts.P1 & P2 before the Sub Inspector of Police, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the EssentialCommodities Act, 1955. It is stated that ignoring the documents, WP(C) No.8427/2007-2-by Ext.P5, the vehicle as well as the commodity were seized. Ext.P7appeal was filed before the Government. But, however, that wasalso rejected by Ext.P9. It is in these circumstances, this writpetition is filed.

The petitioner seeks to legitimise procurement andtransportation of wheat on the strength of Exts.P1 & P2. However, the records show that neither of these documents were present inthe vehicle or with the driver at the time when the goods wereseized. Though, the petitioner has canvassed for the position thatthese documents were handed over to the Sub Inspector of Police, there is no record whatsoever to substantiate the same. Thepetitioner has also no case that these documents were producedeither before the District Collector or before the Government. Insuch circumstances, the fact of production of the documents tolegitimise the procurement or transportation of wheat has not beenestablished. In such circumstances, I do not find anything illegal inthe view taken by the statutory authorities both in Ext.P5 and Ext.P9.Therefore, the writ petition fails, and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)jg