KUNHIMANNAN Vs. ADDL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied to the third respondent-the district Collector,Calicut , on 13121971 for the grant of a licence under Clause. 3 and 4 of the Kerala Food grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 for carrying on business as a dealer in food grains. While the application was pending consideration before the district Collector, the business premises of the petitioner who was already carrying on trade in groceries was inspected by the Additional Sub-Inspector of police, Calicut Town Police Station along with the City Rationing Officer,calicut on 15-12-1971 and it was found that the petitioner had stored in the said shop 53 bags of rice. THE said quantity of rice was thereupon seized by the officers and the petitioner's shop was locked and sealed by them. THEreafter, the third respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under S. 6 of the Essential commodities Act,1955 (herein-after referred to as the Act) directing the petitioner to show cause against confiscation of the seized quantity of rice under S. 6a of the Act. THE petitioner submitted an explanation before the third respondent wherein he contended that the rice stored in his shop was not intended to be sold before obtaining the licence for which he had applied and that the petitioner had purchased the rice in anticipation of the grant of the licence. THE third respondent by his proceedings evidenced by Ext. PI dated 22nd February, 1972 held that there was a clear violation by the petitioner of sub-clauses (1), and (2) of Clause. 3of the Kerala Food Grains Dealers' licensing Order, 1967 read with S. 3 of the Act and hence it was ordered that the quantity of f 3 bags of rice seized from the petitioner's shop will be confiscated to Government under S. 6a of the Act.

(2.) AGAINST the said order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Kozhikod e under S. 6c of the Act. That appeal was dismissed by the District Judge as per the judgment evidenced by Ext. P2 dated 8th October, 1973 The learned District Judge took the view that by virtu: of sub-clause (2) of Clause. 3 of the Kerala Food Grains Dealers' licensing Order, 1967 any person who is found to have stored two quintals or more of any one of the food grains has to be deemed to be deemed to be carrying on business as a dealer unless the contrary is proved. In the opinion of the district judge the petitioner who was found to have stored 53 bags of rice in his shop a quantity far exceeding the limit of two quintals mentioned in clause. 3 (2) had not adduced any acceptable evidence for rebutting the presumption created by sub-clause (2) and that hence he must be held to have contravened the provisions of Clause. 3 of the Food Grains Dealers' Licensing order read with S. 3 of the Act. The direction given by the District Collector for confiscation of the seized quantity of food grains was therefore held by the District Judge to be fully justified and valid in law. This writ petition has been brought by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P-1 and P-2.