D BATCHA MOIDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P10, and seeking a direction to release the entire quantity of rice stored by the petitioner in the godown of the State Warehousing Corporation at Cheruvannur covered by Ext. P2 receipt less the quantity already removed. He also seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to hand over the stock of rice of 2893 bags stored in the said godown and covered by Ext. P2 less the quantity already removed. He seeks other incidental prayers as well. Exhibit P10 is an order passed by the District Collector, Kozhikode confiscating 2893 bags of boiled rice belonging to M/s. Munnar Traders under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and directing its sale by Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation observing certain rules and regulations in that regard with sufficient protection to the sale proceeds. Exhibit P10 is an appealable order as per Section 6C of the said Act even admittedly by the petitioner. Inspite of that, the petitioner has resorted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court contending before me that Ext. P10 is without jurisdiction and violating the principles of natural justice in which case, the alternate remedy shall not be a bar to entertain a writ petition. The petitioner is well justified in contending so. Therefore, inspite of the appellate remedy available, I am called upon to examine the legality or otherwise of Ext. P10, the impugned order.

(2.) Exhibit P10 is an order passed by the District Collector, Kozhikode in respect of the alleged illegal storage of the aforesaid quantity of rice. It is admitted by the petitioner, the managing partner of M/s. Munnar Traders, that he had stored the aforesaid quantity of rice in a godown of Kerala State Warehousing Corporation at Cheruvannur in Kozhikode district. Admittedly by the petitioner, he holds a licence for purchase, sale and store for sale of rice and paddy as per Ext.P1 licence issued under clause 4(2) of the Kerala Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 by the District Supply Officer, Idukki, the 4th respondent. Condition No. 2 of the licence reads as follows :"

(3.) Petitioner submits that the Note in the licence enables him to store the rice and paddy in any other place also,"if he gives prior intimation to the licensing authority .......... about the storage in any other place."According to him, he had issued Ext. P3 intimation to the District Supply Officer, Idukki as early as on 19-11-98 about the storage of goods at Cheruvannur in Kozhikode district because of the lack of sufficient space in the godown at Munnar. Therefore, storage at Cheruvannur is in accordance with the licence conditions and in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order issued in terms of Section 3 read with Sec. 5 of the Act. Hereinafter it is referred to as "the Order". So, there was no illegality or violation of licence conditions or the Order to result an order confiscating of the rice so stored as done in Ext. P10. Therefore, there was absolutely no jurisdiction factually for the District Collector to confiscate the foodgrains that he had stored in the godown at Cheruvannur in Kozhikode district. It is further contended by the petitioner that his licensing authority being the District Supply Officer, Idukki, the District Collector, Kozhikode does not have any authority over the stock which he had stored in terms of Exh. P1 licence. That also is an added reason to contend that the District Collector does not have any jurisdiction, to issue Ext. P10. It is contended further that as the District Collector, Kozhikode did not enquire with the District Supply Officer at Idukki, his licensing authority, as to whether he possesses a valid licence or not, there was violation of the principles of the natural justice in not considering the relevant materials so far as the storage by the petitioner is concerned. Exhibit P10 discloses that the District Collector, Kozhikode did ascertain details only from the District Supply Officer, Kozhikode who was not the licensing authority of the petitioner. Therefore, the necessary materials are not considered by the District Collector, Kozhikode depriving the petitioner his opportunity to defend the case with reference to his own licence. Without enquiring about the veracity of Ext. P1 licence, an order like Ext. P10 should not have been issued.