DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. NIRADEEPAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in WP (C) No. 13779/2007 are the appellants in this Writ Appeal. THE respondents herein filed the Writ Petition for the following relief: " issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, commanding the respondents to provisionally release the wheat seized as per Ext. P1 mahazar to the petitioner firm on the petitioner firm depositing the control price fixed for ration wheat sold through ration shops in the State of Kerala, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings to be initiated under S. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. "

(2.) THE writ petitioner is a partnership firm having business in Changanacherry taluk, Kottayam District. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner firm regularly purchases wheat from various dealers and from open market. On 20. 4. 2007 the Taluk Supply Officer, Changanacherry along with other officials inspected the business premises of the petitioner and seized 234610 kgs. of wheat. Ext. P1 mahazar was prepared. Ext. P1 would indicate that the wheat is intended for supply through public distribution system. THEre is no challenge in the Writ Petition against the contents of Ext. P1. If the contents of Ext. P1 are accepted as correct, it is clear that the seized wheat is not a commodity which would be available in open market, but it would be available only through public distribution system.

(3.) A statement is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is mentioned that control price was fixed under the Kerala Rationing Order 1966 for the commodity in question. The State Government supplies rice, wheat, sugar etc. through Civil Supplies Department at reduced rate for distribution to the poor people of the State through the public distribution system. It is stated that the wheat in question is intended to be distributed through the public distribution system and it is intended for supply to the people below the poverty line. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the District Collector has no other way than to sell the seized articles at the controlled price to ration card holders through fair price shop/ration shops. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the writ petitioner is not entitled to get release of the wheat in question. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal (1990 (3) SCC 549 : 1990 (2) KLT SN 2 (C. No. 2) SC) would fortify our conclusion. We allow the Writ Appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Petition. .