Disposed

C.K.Sayeed v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala HC15 Jun 2012WP(C)/7209/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order permitting prosecution for Essential Commodities Act violation. Without expressing any opinion on the merits or the validity of the administrative order, the court stated the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy under Section 6C if applicable. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without expressing an opinion on the merits; the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit if the appeal period had expired.

C.K.Sayeed Vs the District Collector… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/25TH JYAISHTA 1934S

¶5

WP(C).No. 7209 of 2012 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.K.SAYEED, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. C. K.MOOSA, ZAREENA MANZIL, L I G - 503 PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - 682030

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

DCS

¶14

WP(C).No. 7209 of 2012 (A)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:-

¶17

EXT.P1:COPY OF ORDER IN CS.9/347/09 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD 21/12/2011 ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.05.2010 ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2011

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶23

W.P.(C).No. 7209 of 2012

¶24

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2012

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the District Collector, wherein permission has been granted

¶27

to prosecute the petitioner for violation of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act as well as Kerosene Control Order.

¶28

The respondents have filed a statement.

¶29

The petitioner is the proprietor of a provision store named 'C.K.S.

¶30

Provision Stores' situated near to Atlantis Railway Gate at Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, on 16.6.2009 the officers of Civil Supplies Department conducted an inspection and seized 405 litres of kerosene unauthorisedly kept for sale. In para 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that the kerosene allegedly kept for sale was without knowledge or consent of the petitioner. On that day he had entrusted the shop to his friend. Ext.P1 is the order which the petitioner has received thereafter. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order is issued without giving ample opportunity to him. It is also stated that there is no power to permit prosecution like the one done herein.

¶31

W.P.(C).No.7209/2012

¶32

-2-

¶33

Learned Government Pleader, relying upon the averments contained in the statement, submitted that the allegations raised by the petitioner are not correct. During the time of seizure the petitioner's brother Shri Shameer was present and he has signed as a witness to the seizure mahazar. It is also stated that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and even after the lapse of more than a year, no explanation or reply was submitted by the petitioner to the said show cause notice and thereafter only, an order of confiscation was passed as per Annexure B which was served on the petitioner.

¶34

Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in passing Ext.P1, the District Collector has acted ultra vires of the provisions of the Statute, learned Government Pleader explained that the same is only an administrative order and therefore the petitioner is not prejudiced by the same.

¶35

The remedy of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader submits, is only under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act before the District Court concerned, to challenge Annexure B order, if he is so advised.

¶36

Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to

¶37

W.P.(C).No.7209/2012

¶38

-3-

¶39

challenge Annexure B under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act by filing an appeal, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that I have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period for filing appeal is over. It is upto the petitioner to file an affidavit showing the reasons for the delay. No costs.

¶40

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶41

kav/

C.K.Sayeed v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Sayeed v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

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.M.Krishnan Unni Vs Sri.K.M.Saseendran Unni

Joseph Kurien and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Prijish.K Vs Kannur University

M.Sumangala Vs S.N.Burman

Thomas Sebastian Vs Bar Council of Kerala

M/S.Star Gate Travel Bureau Vs the Secretary