Partly allowed

T.v.Kuriakose v. C.I. of Police, Manarkad, Kottayam

Kerala HC24 May 2010OP/17776/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a tyre retreader and self-proclaimed lubricant dealer, challenged confiscation orders for excess fuel and seized lubricants. Court quashed the confiscation of lubricants (and non-petrol/diesel petroleum items) as authorities failed to consider his dealer claim; reopened proceedings for fresh findings.

What did the court decide?

Confiscation order (Ext.P5) and Appeal Order (Ext.P6) regarding lubricants and other petroleum products are quashed. District Collector directed to reconsider matter within two months.

T.v.Kuriakose Vs C.I. of Police, Manarkad, Kottayam — Kerala HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932

¶5

OP.No. 17776 of 2000(N)

PETITIONER(S):

T.V.KURIAKOSE, THEKKEDATHU HOUSE, MANARKADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------1. C.I OF POLICE,

¶13

MANARKADU,

¶14

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM

¶16

STATE OF KERALA,

¶17

REP: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH FOR R1,R2.R3

¶19

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER ON CMP NO.29394 OF 2000 IN O.P.NO.17776 OF 2000

¶21

DISMISSED

¶22

24.5.2010

¶23

SD/-S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶25

EXT.P1:COPY OF LICENCE ISSUED BY PRESIDENT, VIAJYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT FROM 1995 TO 31.3.1998 FOR THE SALE LUBRICANTS DTD.4.3.1998.

¶26

EXT.P2:COPY OF LICENCE DTD.4.3.1998 ISSUED BY PRESIDENT, VIAJYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶27

EXT.P3:COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P4:COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DEALERSHIP ISSUED BY CASTROL INDIA LTD.

¶29

EXT.P5:COPY OF ORDER NO.CS4-2601/98 DTD.17.11.1998 PASSED BY R2. EXT.P6:COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.94/2000/F& CSD DTD.17..4.2000

¶30

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

¶31

/TRUE COPY/

¶32

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶33

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶34

O.P. No.17776 OF 2000

¶35

Dated this the 24^th day of MAY, 2010

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner claims to be a dealer in lubricants and oils, running a tyre retreading business, for which he claims to have Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4 licences. The first respondent conducted a raid in the petitioner's premises and seized 20 litres of petrol, 100 litres of diesel and 26 other items most of which are lubricants. The same culminated in Ext.P5 order of the second respondent directing confiscation of the seized articles. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Government which ended in Ext.P6 confirming Ext.P5 order. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P6 orders.

¶38

The petitioner's primary contention is that Exts.P5 and P6 are non-speaking orders which do not state as to how the petitioner can be penalised by confiscation. Regarding the petrol and diesel, he would contend that apart from being a dealer in lubricants, the petitioner is also doing tyre retreading. Since the

¶39

O.P.No.17776/2000 2

¶40

petitioner is running two establishments, the petitioner is entitled to be in possession of petrol and diesel up to the limit for both two units separately. As far as the lubricants are concerned, he would submit that he being a dealer in lubricants he is entitled to be in possession of the lubricants in question, although they are also petroleum products.

¶41

The learned Government Pleader on the strength of

¶42

the counter affidavit filed submits that the petitioner cannot contend that because he has two separate units he can separately possess the maximum limit in respect of the two units. As far as the lubricants are concerned, the learned Government Pleader would contend that they being also petroleum products, the embargo in possession of the same without appropriate permits applies to the same also.

¶43

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶44

At the outset I am constrained to note that Ext.P5

¶45

order is a totally non-speaking order which does not give any

¶46

reasons whatsoever. Of course, Ext.P6 order gives some reasons in respect of petrol and diesel which reads thus:

¶47

“xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 3. As per Notification No(CS) C2-17240/79 dated 12.4.79 issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies under clause 6 of the Kerala Motor Spirit and High

¶48

O.P.No.17776/2000

¶49

¶50

Speed Diesel oil (Maintenance and Regulation of Supplies Order, 1979, a person other than a dealer shall not have in his possession, ownership or control motor spirit in excess of ten litres and High Speed diesel oil in excess of twenty litres unless he has taken a permit as required under the above said clause.

¶51

It is seen that Sri.T.V. Kuriakose the appellant has stocked petrol, diesel and other lubricants in excess of the quantity specified by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies in the above said notification. Hence the proceedings of the District Collector is valid and the appeal petition is, therefore, rejected.”

¶52

Admittedly, the petrol and diesel in possession of the petitioner is in excess of the permitted quantity. The petitioner cannot contend that since he has two units which uses petrol, he can separately possess the maximum limit in respect of the two units. Such liberty is not permitted by the rules. The petitioner being only one person, he can store petrol and diesel only to the extent prescribed by the notification issued for that purpose. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the orders in respect of petrol and diesel. But when the petitioner has claimed that he is a dealer in lubricants and he has produced Ext.P4 in respect thereof, the authorities were bound to consider that contention of the petitioner in accordance with law. Neither in Ext.P5 nor in Ext.P6 that contention has been considered. The petitioner has got another contention that the lubricants do not come within the purview of the order in

¶53

O.P.No.17776/2000

¶54

¶55

question under which the lubricants have been seized. In so far as these questions have not been considered either by the District Collector nor the Government, I am of opinion that, those questions need to be considered by the District Collector afresh with reference to the law applicable and also the contention of the petitioner that he is a dealer in lubricants. Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P5 to the extent it relates to petroleum products other than petrol and diesel are quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the law applicable dealing with his contentions, particularly with reference to the contention that he is a dealer in lubricants. Orders in this regard shall be passed afresh after notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of being heard as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

The Original petition is disposed of as above.

¶57

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶58

acd

¶59

O.P.No.17776/2000 5

¶60

O.P.No.17776/2000 6

T.v.Kuriakose v. C.I. of Police, Manarkad, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.v.Kuriakose v. C.I. of Police, Manarkad, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Hamsakutty Vs the Grievance Redressal Officer & Others

Vinodkumar Kuttickat Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others

Kollengode Block Registered Seed Growere Vs State of Kerala and Another

Nasreena Vs State of Kerala

The Ksrtc Co-Op. Society Vs the Ksrtc

State of Kerala Vs Alphonsa Engratida P.J. and Others