Disposed

Pathumma v. District Collector

Kerala HC14 Feb 2019WP(C)/8780/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by legal heirs of a deceased rice and wheat licencee, the Court held that the complaint proceedings lacked a show cause notice for the heirs. The writ was disposed of to direct the authority to treat the document as a show cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing before finalizing the proceedings. No substantive argument on confiscation was examined.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to treat Ext.P2 as a show cause notice, issue a notice of hearing to petitioners within two weeks, and obtain their explanation before passing a final order.

Pathumma Vs District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8780 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 PATHUMMA

¶8

W/O A.B BAKKER, AACHERIVAYALIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶9

2 RAZACK A.B S/O A.B BAKKER, AACHERIVAYALIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶10

3 RAZEENA KUNJUMON D/O A.B BAKKER, AACHERIVAYALIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶11

4 RAFEEQU A.B S/O A.B BAKKER, AACHERIVAYALIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶12

5 RIYAS A.B S/O A.B BAKKER, AACHERIVAYALIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.RAHUL

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, THRIKKAKARA-682021.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.8780/2018

¶17

¶18

2 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, THRIKKAKARA-682021.

¶19

3 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.

¶20

4 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI-682001.

¶21

5 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY TALUK OFFICE), MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.

¶22

BY GP SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.8780/2018

JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who are the widow and children of late A.B.Bakker, who was a KFDL licencee, have filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P2, P3, and P3(a) proceedings initiated against them. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the District Collector, Ernakulam dated 27.10.2015, wherein reference is made to the report submitted by the District Supply Officer on 26.3.2007 regarding confiscation of rice and wheat from the godown of Sri.A.B.Bakker. It is stated that the rice and wheat were rationed articles, illegally diverted to the godown of Sri.A.B.Bakker, who was a general merchant. It is further stated in Ext.P3 that, on the basis of an order dated 29.3.2007 issued by the District Collector, it was decided to sell the confiscated items through the public distribution system. But, A.B.Bakker had challenged that

¶28

W.P.(C) No.8780/2018

¶29

¶30

proceedings in W.P.(C) No.11530 of 2007 and pending that writ petition, based on an interim direction, the confiscated items had been entrusted with A.B.Bakker on the security of an indemnity bond executed by him. W.P.(C) No.11530 of 2007 was later dismissed as not pressed. In the meanwhile, Sri.A.B.Bakker expired. Thereafter, the present proceedings was initiated, initially against A.B.Bakker and on coming to know that he had expired, against his legal heirs, the petitioners herein. From the aforementioned proceedings, it is clear that the proceedings was initiated on the basis of the indemnity bond executed by late A.B.Bakker and that he had appropriated the proceeds from the sale of the rice and wheat released on the strength of the indemnity bond. I do not find any illegality. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, as far as the proceedings initiated for realisation of the value of the rice and wheat is concerned.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.8780/2018

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶34

submits that, since the petitioners are the legal heirs of A.B.Bakker, they are entitled to be issued with notice and to be heard before the proceedings are finalised. I find substance in that contention inasmuch as Exts.P2 and P3 do not contemplate an opportunity of hearing being afforded to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate that Ext.P2 shall be taken to be a show cause notice and the petitioners provided with an opportunity of hearing before finalising the proceedings.

¶35

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 to be a show cause notice and to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to take into consideration Ext.P6 explanation submitted by the first petitioner, before passing a final order. For this purpose a notice of hearing shall be

¶36

W.P.(C) No.8780/2018

¶37

¶38

issued to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of

¶39

receipt of a copy of this judgment, fixing a specific date for

¶40

hearing and the proceedings shall be finalised thereafter.

¶41

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/14.02

W.P.(C) No.8780/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING THE DEATH OF SRI.A.B BAKKER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.165/1995 MUVATTUPUZHA SRO. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2633/2013, MUVATTUPUZHA SRO. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Pathumma v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathumma v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Wilson Vs Kalady Grama Panchayath

Tholur Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

Pathuthara Hussain Haji Vs the Porur Grama Panchayath

M.S.Jini Vs the State of Kerala

Rashid.P Vs Regional Transport Authority

Mohanan.a Vs Suresh