State Of Kerala vs K. Geetha
2021 Latest Caselaw 23720 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
    TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                         RP NO. 648 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15343/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                               KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
           CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
     2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM DISTRICT
           CIVIL STATION,KOLLAM-691035
     3     DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
           OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,KOLLAM-691013
     4     THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
           I ST FLOOR,MINI CIVIL STATION,PUNALUR,KOLLAM-691305

           BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 5TH RESPONDENT IN WPC:

     1     K. GEETHA
           AGED 52 YEARS
           W/O K.SIVASSANKARAN,BUSINESS RESIDING AT THADTHARIKATHU
           (H),VILLUMALAP.O,KULATHUPUZHA,KOLLAM-691310
     2     INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
           REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(LPG), KERALA
           STATE OFFICE,PANAMPILLY AVENUE,
           PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O,COCHIN-682036


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 648 OF 2021                     2




                                   ORDER

Dated this the 30th day of November, 2021

The State of Kerala is in review before this Court

aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 15343 of 2020,

dated 17.11.2020. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner

therein aggrieved by the cancellation of LPG Licence granted

to him by the 2nd respondent - District Collector in the writ

petition. The writ petition was partly allowed by this Court

setting aside Exts.P3 and P6 orders of cancellation. While

disposing of this writ petition, this Court in paragraph Nos. 7

and 8 held as follows:-

"7. On a pointed question, learned Government Pleader conceded that no orders have been passed by the State Government authorising the 2nd respondent to exercise the powers under Clause 13. In the circumstances, this Court holds that Exts.P3 and P6 issued purportedly under Clause 13, are ultravires.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as Exts.P3 and P6 were issued without any authority of law, the petitioner is entitled to a direction of this Court to the 1st respondent to pay a sum at the rate of ₹65,000/- per month to the petitioner from 05.06.2020 as compensation for loss of business of the petitioner. As the impugned action is found illegal and the loss caused to the petitioner can be ascertained by producing the tax returns filed by the petitioner or by the probable profits that would have been

made by the petitioner as per the norms fixed by the Oil Companies, this Court need not be hesitant to award compensation in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The Review Petitioners are aggrieved by the observations.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader contended

that Clause 13 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of

Distribution and Supply) Order, 2000, empowers the officers of

the Civil Supplies Department to exercise the powers

thereunder. The learned Senior Government Pleader further

relied on Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to

contend that the District Collector has power to seize the articles

and confiscate the same. Therefore the observations contained

in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 are not correct and amount to error

apparent on the face of the records. Therefore the judgment is

liable to be reviewed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the Review

Petitioners and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

4. The issue involved in the writ petition was whether the

cancellation of licence granted to the petitioner by the District

Collector was justified or not. No Government Order authorising

the District Collector to exercise the powers of cancellation of

licence of LPG Distributorship, has been brought to the notice of

this Court.

5. The learned Standing Counsel produced Annexure 1

Gazette Notification in the review petition, to contend that the

District Collector has such power. However Annexure 1 Gazette

Notification dated 18.01.2003 would indicate that by that Gazette

Notification, the Government of Kerala has authorised all the

Officers of the Civil Supplies Department, not below the rank of

Rationing Inspectors, to exercise the functions of stop and

search and seizure of goods.

6. This Court finds that neither Annexure 1 Gazette

Notification dated 18.01.2003 nor Clause 13 of the Liquefied

Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Distribution and Supply) Order,

2000, nor Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

empowers the District Collector to cancel LPG Licence granted

to the petitioner. To that extent there is no error apparent on the

face of records warranting interference of the judgment of this

Court in review.

However the contentions of the learned Government

Pleader raised herein relating to powers of the District Collector

for seizure and confiscation, coming under Annexure 1 Gazette

Notification, Clause 13 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas

(Regulation of Distribution and Supply) Order, 2000 and Section

6A of the Essential Commodities Act are left open.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh

APPENDIX OF RP 648/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.2/2003/FCS & CAD DATED 18.01.2003