This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging the seizure of food articles. The Court held that the petitioner had no entitlement to relief and found that the fact findings of the District Collector required no interference. A statutory remedy exists for any grievance.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/20168TH BHADRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 10150 of 2007 (G)
PETITIONER(S):
KHALID KUTTY A., PROPRIETOR, M/S. VANIYANTTAYYATHU TRADERS, MERCHENTS AND COMMISSION AGENTS, VATTAPARAMBU, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.SHAJAHAN P.M.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM.
2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM.
3. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AD
WP(C).No. 10150 of 2007 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P2: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.1.2007 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P3: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.14.1.07 IN WP(C) 2729/07
EXT.P4: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.C.S.10-218/07
EXT.P5: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EDITION DTD.22.3.07 OF THE NEWS DAILY 'MADHYAMAM'
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
AD
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
WP(C) No.10150 of 2007 ----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is engaged in food grain
business. Certain food items have been seized from him
treating it as rationed articles. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the action to sell the food articles. The case of the petitioner is that he has already approached the District Collector for release of the food articles and this Court directed the District Collector to consider his representation.
with reference to the fact that the seized articles were rationed articles. If the petitioner has any grievance
WP(C) No.10150 of 2007
2
against the order of the District Collector, he has statutory remedy before the higher authority. There is no scope for interference with the fact findings of the District Collector. The writ petition is dismissed. However if the petitioner has chosen to challenge Ext.P6 before appropriate forum, dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of writ petitioner to pursue such remedy.
Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
AD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court warrants interference with the fact findings of the District Collector regarding seizure of rationed articles.
Whether there is a scope for interference with the order of the District Collector.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WP(C) 2729/07Referred¶20
Khalid Kutty A.
District Collector, Civil Station, Kollam
District Supply Officer, Civil Station, Kollam
Taluk Supply Officer, Karunagappally
A.Muhamad Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
