Allowed

S.Anus, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC18 Feb 2019WP(MD)/3141/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a rice supplier whose PDS rice consignment was seized. The court noted the police failed to furnish the quality certificate promptly, hindering the petitioner's appeal. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal, mandating the appellate authority to draw a fresh sample in the petitioner's presence for analysis by

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the petitioner was directed to file an appeal; the appellate authority directed to draw a fresh sample, get an independent analysis, and dispose of the appeal within fou

S.Anus, Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.02.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD)No.3141 of 2019 and WMP(MD)No.2458 of 2019

S.Anus

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director,

¶7

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,

¶8

No.12, Thambusamy Road,

¶9

Keelpauk, Chennai – 10.

¶10

2.The Regional Manager,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar.

¶12

3.The Assistant Quality Inspector, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Sattur Godown, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

4.The Inspector Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Virudhunagar. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to depute any other quality inspector to re-analyze the rice seized by the fourth respondent on 19.10.2018 and further direct the respondents 2 to 4 to give a sample from the rice bags to the petitioner to enable him to analyse the same in a private agency.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate for R4

¶17

Mr.Rajakarthikeyan for R1 to R3

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

2.The consignment of 138 rice bags belonging to the writ petitioner was seized by the fourth respondent police on 19.10.2018. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ According to the fourth respondent, the bags in question contain PDS rice. Therefore, Crime No.138 of 2018 on the file of the fourth respondent was registered for the offences under Section 6(4) of

¶21

¶22

TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w.7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act. The fourth respondent forwarded the entire consignment to the third respondent and samples were also drawn. The sample was sent to quality analyst. Quality Certificate No.0255 dated 22.10.2018 was issued by the third respondent to the fourth respondent indicating that the sample pertains to the PDS rice category. The quality certificate indicates that an appeal can be preferred before the Senior Regional Manager within 15 days. Unless a copy of the said certificate is furnished to the petitioner, he cannot avail the appeal remedy.

¶23

3.It is admitted by the fourth respondent that the copy of the said certificate was not furnished to the petitioner. Today only the quality certificate has been enclosed in the form of typed set of papers. The writ petitioner is now possessed of a copy of the same. It is open to the writ petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority.

¶24

4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that he would file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall entertain the same without reference to limitation. The appellate authority shall ensure that one more sample is drawn from the seized bags in the presence of the petitioner and the fourth respondent and sent for quality analyst report from some other region. After getting the quality certificate from the said referral analyst, the appellate authority shall dispose of the petitioner's appeal. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

5.This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶26

Assistant Registrar

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

¶30

The Inspector Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Virudhunagar.

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.RAJA.KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-47911[F] dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18/02/2019 )

¶32

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-48098[F] dated 19/02/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.T.LENIN KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-48025[F] dated 19/02/2019 )

¶34

WP(MD)No.3141 of 2019 and WMP(MD)No.2458 of 2019 18.02.2019

¶35

SKM KK/SAR-/13.03.2019/3P-5C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Anus, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anus, v. the Managing Director

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

Alexpandian Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthilkumaran, Vs the Inspector of Police

Paraman Vs the Inspector of Police

J.S.Leyron Morais, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M.Chandrasekaran Vs the District Collector

P.Velammal, Vs the Tamilnadu State