Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to respondents to refrain from distributing the rice seized from him through Public Distribution System without affording him an opportunity of being heard.
2. The facts involved in the above writ petition would disclose that the Kottarakkara police intercepted the vehicle transporting rice on the allegation that it is rationed article. Further, an inspection has been conducted in the godown of the petitioner and certain quantity of rice had been seized on the allegation that the same is also rationed article.
3. Though the petitioner had approached the District Collector, no action has been taken in the matter. According to the petitioner, he is a wholesale dealer and the commodities which are now seized is not rationed article whereas it is purchased by him and intended for sale in open market.
W.P.C.No.15463/2014 2
4. Despite the said seizure, the authorities are proceeding to distribute the commodities through ration depot without hearing the petitioner, is his complaint.
5. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the District Supply Officer is the competent authority to consider whether an article of food is ration article or not. That apart, the petitioner was storing the rice in a godown which was not permitted as per the licence issued to him.
Having regard to these factual situations, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity to substantiate that the article seized is not ration article. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
i) That respondents 3 and 4 shall conduct necessary enquiry into the matter and complete the process within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.C.No.15463/2014 3
ii) Until such time, the authorities shall not distribute the rice involved in the seizure through any public distribution system.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr