YOUNUS KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Petition concerns the seizure of raw cashew nuts kept in the petitioner's factory Q. 163. Petitioner is a processor of cashew. He has a cashew factory at Nedumangad with registration No. Q. 163. The factory is registered and licensed under the provisions of the Factories act. THIS licence is renewed from time to time. The petitioner had remitted the necessary licence fee in October 1986 for renewing the licence upto December 31, 1987. The petitioner had not received the licence back from the office of the 5th respondent to whom the licence and the chalan receipt had been forwarded for necessary endorsement of extension of the licence. The licence was still in the office of the 5th respondent when the petitioners' premises were inspected late on 24-4-1987 by respondents 3 and 4 and others. According to the petitioner, just on the eve of this inspection, there was an inspection by the officers of the State Bank of Travancore, Quilon Branch from whom the petitioner had availed financial assistance. They had found 265 bags of raw nuts, and kernels equivalent to 430 bags of raw nuts in various stages of processing in the factory. There were also 670 bags of raw nuts in the godown under the Bank's lock and key. When respondents 3 and 4 inspected, they called for the licence of the factory renewed upto-date. The 3rd respondent was then informed by the petitioner's Manager that the licence had been sent to the office of the 5th respondent in October, 1986 itself and that it had not been received back from his office. An assurance was however, given by the Manager that he will produce the same before the 3rd respondent next day itself. According to the petitioner, apart from this alleged defect, no other defect was detected in any of the documents in the petitioner's factory amounting to non-compliance with the provisions of the Raw Cashew Nuts (Marketing and transport and Fixation of Minimum Price) Act, 1981. Nevertheless the 4th respondent declared that the raw cashew nuts and the cashew kernels kept in the petitioner's factory had been seized by him under the provisions of this Act.

(2.) THE petitioner produced the very next day the licence for his factory renewed upto 31-12-1987 before respondents 3 and 4. THEy however, refused to look into the same. THE petitioner sought an interview with the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, which he could not however, get. THE petitioner narrates as to what happened thereafter in para 6 of the original petition. It is stated that the 4th respondent loaded the raw cashew in the factory in two lorries and took them out of the factory premises with the help of workers belonging to the CITU. 191 bags of raw cashew nuts have thus been seized and removed.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY and on 5-5-1987 it was represented to this court that the controversy between the parties was only regarding the raw cashew nuts and not regarding the processed kernels. Accordingly petitioner was allowed to keep the processed kernels, properly packed, and stored, separately, until further orders from this court.