Allowed

K.M. Noushad Hussain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2024WP(C)/4955/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An erstwhile Authorized Wholesale Distributor challenged demand and Revenue Recovery notices issued by the Taluk Supply Officer for alleged arrears after the State took over grain distribution under the National Food Security Act. The court held the notices were invalid for want of adjudication with hearing under Clause 51(8B), quashed them, and left liberty to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 demand notice and Ext.P7 Revenue Recovery notice set aside; liberty reserved to competent authority to act per Clause 51(8B) after due adjudication.

K.M. Noushad Hussain Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4955 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

K.M. NOUSHAD HUSSAIN

¶7

MANAGING PA RTNER, K.K.MUHAMMAD & CO, MULLASERIL,
KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690502

¶8

BY ADVS.
A.KEVIN THOMAS
NIDHI SAM JOHNS
LIJO JOSEPH (THOPPIL)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
GROUND FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, REVENUE TOWER, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514

¶12

3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, REVENUE TOWER, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514 BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

¶13

SRI.P.S.APPU, GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 4955 OF 2023 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner says that he was appointed as an “Authorized Wholesale Distributor” (AWD) under the Kerala Rationing Order,1966 (‘Order’ for short); but that, from November, 2016, the State of Kerala took over delivery of entire food grains, through the jurisdictional District Supply Officers, on account of the coming into force of the National Food Security Act. He says that he was thus displaced; but that, in spite of this, Ext.P2 notice has been issued by the Taluk Supply Officer to him, demanding a sum of Rs.4,43,214/-, allegedly being arrears under various heads. He argues that Ext.P2 is untenable because, no adjudication, as required under the provisions of the ‘Order’, has taken place and hence that the Revenue Recovery action is illegal and unlawful.

¶18

Sri.A.Kevin Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, out of the amounts mentioned in Ext.P2, Rs.3,70,128/- is alleged to be due with respect to food grains lifted by the petitioner between November, 2016 and April, 2017 – when, admittedly, the Civil Supplies Department was lifting and distributing the food grains, as evident from Ext.P6. He submitted that, therefore, it is luculent that Ext.P2 is totally vitiated and hence liable to be set aside.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 4955 OF 2023 3

¶20

The learned Government Pleader – Sri.P.S.Appu, in response, submitted that, as clear from Ext.P2, the Taluk Supply Officer has made the demand therein to the petitioner based on a report of the District Supply Officer dated 05/02/2021. He submitted that, therefore, without the petitioner challenging the said report, this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶21

I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader because, Ext.P2 is a notice admittedly settled without hearing the petitioner and without mentioning about any adjudication that has preceded it. If the report of the District Supply Officer referred therein is one after an “adjudication” under the ‘Order’; then obviously, the petitioner ought to have been involved in such processes, which concededly has not been.

¶22

Going by Clause 51(8B) of the ‘Order’, any recovery could have been initiated against erstwhile wholesale distributors like the petitioner only after the liability, if any, is adjudicated by the Government, or the Commissioner, or District Collector, or any officer of the Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of the Taluk Supply Officer. The said provision renders it apodictic that any such adjudication can be done only after the petitioner is given an opportunity of being heard. When Ext.P2 notice has been issued without

¶23

WP(C) NO. 4955 OF 2023 4

¶24

following the mandate of the afore provision, I cannot find favour with it.

¶25

In fact, the learned Government Pleader, to a pointed question

¶26

from this Court, was unable to inform whether there is any other adjudicatory order within the mandate of the afore provision; and am, therefore, certain that I am fortified in the course I propose.

¶27

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P2, as also the consequential Ext.P7 Revenue Recovery notice; however, reserving liberty to the competent Authority to initiate and continue action as per the afore provision of the ‘Order’, for which purpose all rival contentions in this regard are left open.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶30

MC/20.3

¶31

WP(C) NO. 4955 OF 2023 5

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4955/2023

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2017 IN
W.P.(C) NO. 781 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.03.2021 ISSUED
BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KARTHIKAPALLY
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
ALONG WITH RECEIPT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE TALUK
SUPPLY OFFICER
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REQUEST FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED
01.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE REVENUE
RECOVERY NOTICE

¶35

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶36

EXHIBIT r 2 (a)True copy of the reply dated 28.04.2021

K.M. Noushad Hussain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M. Noushad Hussain v. State of Kerala

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.a.Joseph Vs Official Liquidator,High Court of Kerala

Balan Vs the Official Liquidator

K.v.M.Zakir Vs Canara Bank

P.R.Bijoykumar Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

L.Devadas, Vs the District Collector

Tati Construction Private Limited, Vs Registrar, Calicut University