JOSEPH Vs. DIST JUDGE KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 6,736 Kilograms of raw cashewnuts belonging to the petitioner, while it was being transported in a lorry, was seized by the police and produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer, 2nd respondent herein, on the allegation that the said quantity of raw cashewnuts was transported in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement & distribution) Ordinance, 1981. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who confiscated the entire quantity of raw cashewnuts, passed an order dated 3-7-1981, a true copy of which is Ext. P1. This order was challenged in appeal in CM. A. 89/81 before the District Judge, Kottayam. Several grounds were taken in support of the appeal, but the learned District judge without considering any of these grounds dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation as it was filed on 28-9-1981, beyond the period of 30 days fixed by the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution)Act.

(2.) IT is this judgment of the learned District Judge that is challenged before this Court. Under S. 22 of the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Act, here-tn-after called the Act, any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under S. 20 of the Act can file an appeal within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order to the district Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the raw cashewnuts to which such order relates were seized. In this case, ext. P1 order challenged in appeal was passed on 3-7-1981 and the appeal was filed before the learned District Judge on 23-9-1981. The petitioner contended before the appellate court that he received Ext. P1 only on 23-9-1981 and the appeal was filed within one month from that date and therefore the appeal was perfectly within time. IT appears that before the appellate court on behalf of the respondents, despatch register was produced wherein there was an entry to the effect that the order was despatched to the petitioner on 14-7-1981. Admittedly, there is nothing in this despatch register to show whether this order was sent by post or registered post. There is no case for the respondents that this order was handed over in person to the petitioner. IT is clear from s. 22 of the Act that the period of limitation commences only from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner and not from the date of the order or the date of despatch of the order. Therefore, the authority wh o was responsible to communicate the order under S. 22 of the Act ought to have taken necessary and reasonable precautions in order to ensure the communication of the order to the party. As a matter of prudence and caution such order ought to be sent by registered post with acknowledgement due so that any possible contention about the non-receipt or the date of receipt that might be taken by the party to whom the order is sent could well be avoided. Admittedly, this is not done in this case. Not even the normal care or caution is seen taken in the matter. IT was stating that the petitioner did not safely keep the cover in which the order was said to have been communicated to him that the learned judge dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. IT is not always reasonable to expect that everyone should keep the envelope in which letter or communication or order is sent safely and intact. The counsel for the respondents was finding it difficult to support the reasoning; or the ground on which appeal was dismissed although he made an attempt to support it. I do not find any material on record to hold that Ext. P1 order was not received by the petitioner on 23-9-1981 as claimed by him. Therefore it cannot be said that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and Ext. P2 is liable to be interfered with. In the result, this o. P. is allowed and Ext. P2 is set aside and the learned District Judge is directed to restore the appeal on his file and dispose of the same according to law. . .