D B MOIDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O.P. No. 2340/99 of this Court is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the Original Petition thereby upholding Ext. P10 order of confiscation passed by the second respondent District Collector, Kozhikode. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

(2.) The appellant/petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s. Munnar Traders, a licensed dealer under the Kerala Food grains Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Licensing Order'). Ext. P1 is the licence issued in his favour by the District Collector, Idukki wherein the place of business is shown as Munnar. Recently the appellant purchased 2893 bags of boiled rice from two millers in Andhra Pradesh which was consigned by rail from Bhimavaram Junction in Andhra Pradesh to Kozhikode. It was necessitated on account of the fact that Munnur is not connected by rail. It was therefore, necessary for the appellant to consign the stock to Kozhikode, Thrissur, Ernakulam or Kollam which are the only rake points in Kerala. Since wagon facility was easily available to Kozhikode, the stock of 2893 bags of rice was consigned to Kozhikode. The consignment in question reached Kozhikode on 18.11.1998. It was absolutely necessary for the appellant to clear the consignment from the railway goodshed immediately on arrival on account of exhorbitant and formidable demurrage charges which would be realised by the railways if the goods are not cleared within the time stipulated. On 19.11.1998 after having identified the storage facilities in the godown of the State Warehousing Corporation (a Government body) at Cheruvannur in Kozhikode, the appellant as per Ext. P3, intimated his licensing authority, viz. the District Supply Officer, Idduki who is the third respondent herein of the storage of the 2893 bags of rice in the godown at Cheruvannur. The clearance of the goods from the railway good shed took place on 20.11.1998 and the same was stored in the Warehousing Corporation's godown as per Ext. P2 receipt produced in the Original Petition. After storage, on 20.11.1998 itself the petitioner intimated the said fact to the District Supply Officer, Kozhikode vide Ext. P4. On 3.12.1998 when one of the partners of the firm approached the fifth respondent, viz. the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation where the goods were stored, for taking delivery of the rice, he was served with Ext. P5 proceedings of the District Collector, Kozhikode (second respondent) effecting seizure of the entire 2893 bags of rice. Ext. P5 was followed by a notice issued by the second respondent on 5.12.1998 (Ext. P6) proposing to confiscate the entire stock of 2893 bags of rice on the ground that there is contravention of the provisions of S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). In Ext. P6 the appellant was directed to show cause why the rice in question shall not be confiscated. The appellant was also directed to appear before the District Collector, Kozhikode on 11.12.1998 in pursuance of the said show cause notice. At the same time, on 5.12.1998 the second respondent passed a further order directing that the entire stock of 2893 bags of rice stored in the godown of the State Warehousing Corporation be handed over to the Civil Supplies Corporation to be sold through its fair price outlet, viz. Maveli Store vide Ext. P7. The appellant thereupon approached this Court in O.P. No. 24685/98 challenging inter alia the very jurisdiction of the second respondent to proceed under the Act This Court as per Ext. P8 judgment disposed of the said Original Petition recording the undertaken given by the Addl. Advocate General to the effect that the stock of rice will not be disposed of in pursuance of Ext. P7 order. Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the second respondent District Collector and filed a detailed representation, Ext. P9. However, the District Collector, as per Ext. P 10, passed an order confiscating the entire stock of 2893 bags of rice belonging to the appellant and stored in the State Warehousing Corporation solely on the ground that the appellant though a licensee under the Licensing Order, is not entitled to store any goods in a place outside Idukki District and as such violated the provisions of the Licensing Order and the Act. Aggrieved by Ext. P10, the appellant has moved this Court in O.P. No. 2340/99 seeking, inter alia, a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P10 and for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 to forthwith release the entire quantity of rice stored by the petitioner in the godown of the State Warehousing Corporation at Cheruvannur and covered by Ext. P2 receipt as also for other incidental reliefs. It was contended by the appellant/petitioner that he is a licensee duly licensed under the Licensing Order and has its place of business in Munnar. The godown where the petitioner is entitled to stock his rice is also mentioned in Ext. P1 licence. It was further submitted that the petitioner had purchased 2893 bags of rice from millers in Andhra Pradesh and the same was cleared from the railway goodshed at Kozhikode and the same was cleared from the railway good shed at Kozhikode on 20.11.1998 after giving intimation of the storage of the said quantity of rice in the godown of the Warehousing Corporation to the licensing authority of the petitioner as evidenced by Ext. P3. According to the petitioner, it became necessary for him to temporarily store the goods in Kozhikode on account of the absence of sufficient transportation facility to immediately take the entire stock to Munnur and that such temporary storage was clearly bonafide. The further plea put forward by the petitioner is that had it been the intention of the petitioner to effect any business except in accordance with his licence, the godown of the State Warehousing Corporation would have been the last place to be chosen by him. Since no business actually was done by the appellant as a dealer in any place other than its place of business at Munnar, it cannot be said that there is any contravention of the provisions of the Licensing Order or the conditions of licence. However, the learned Single Judge, as per the judgment impugned in this appeal, dismissed the Original Petition in limine on 29.1.1999 itself, the date on which the same had come up for admission, on the ground that a dealer licensed by the licensing authority having territorial jurisdiction over the Idduki District of the concerned food grains is not entitled to store the goods outside the said district and that such storage of the goods is in contravention of Licensing Order warranting confiscation in terms of S.6 A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has moved this appeal.

(3.) We heard learned Senior counsel Mr. S.V.S.Iyer for the appellant at length and also learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. T.M. Muhammed Youseff appearing for the State and Mr. Majnu Komath, appearing for the 5th respondent Warehousing Corporation.