Paranthaman vs Food Safety Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 603 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 603 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2023

Kerala High Court

Paranthaman vs Food Safety Officer on 12 January, 2023

WP(C) NO. 23086 OF 2013              1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 23086 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:

               PARANTHAMAN
               AGED 40 YEARS
               S/O.P.SENGODAN, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, ETA TRADING
               COMPANY, WARED NO.VI, DOOR NO.7, CHULLIMADA,
               PUDICHERRY PANCHAYAT, KANJICODE.P.O.-673 621,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
               SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN



RESPONDENT/S:

      1        FOOD SAFETY OFFICER
               KOLLENGODE CIRCLE, MEENAKSHIPURAM, PALAKKAD
               DISTRICT, PIN-678 533.

      2        DESIGNATED OFFICER FOOD SAFETY
               CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23086 OF 2013               2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   ---------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No. 23086 of 2013
                    --------------------------------------
              Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023


                                 JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

(i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P7 and P8 and quash Exhibits P7 and P8 by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 28AU 6540 to the petitioner.

(iii) Issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." [SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

12.9.2013, this Court passed the following order :

"Admit. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the commodity transported by the petitioner is Palm Kernel Olein, which in fact was imported from Jakarta, Indonesia. It was sold to the consignee at Trichur and it was accordingly, that the same was being transported in the vehicle bearing No.TN 28AU 6540. In the course of transit, the

same was intercepted, issuing Ext.P7 notice, also preparing Ext.P8 mahazar on 10.09.2013. The learned counsel submits that sample has already been taken and the reason for detention is stated as it is an item which is not having any sale market in the State of Kerala and that it is doubted whether the commodity has been brought to the State of Kerala for adulterating coconut oil.

2. The learned Government Pleader submits that serious complaints have been obtained with regard to adulteration of coconut oil and the matter has to be considered in a larger perspective.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 38 proviso as to the course of action provided to have the custody of the goods released even in such circumstance. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready to offer 'Bank Guarantee' in respect of the value of the commodity covered by the transaction.

In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle and the goods to the petitioner on satisfying 'Bank Guarantee' for the requisite amount in respect of 20 metric tons of Palm Kernel Olein and also on giving an undertaking that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle if and when necessitated in connection with further proceedings to be pursued in this regard. It will be open for the respondents to take appropriate steps to see that the commodity is handed over only to the authorised dealers. Hand Over."

3. From the above, it is clear that the vehicle and the

goods were already released to the petitioner. In such

circumstances, the interim order can be made absolute and the

authority concerned can be allowed to proceed in accordance

to law. The authorities are free to conclude any adjudication, if

any. The release of the vehicle will be subject to the final

decision by the competent authority.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions :

1) The order dated 12.9.2013 is made absolute subject to

any adjudication, if any.

2) The competent authority among the respondents are

free to proceed in accordance to law, if any adjudication is

necessary. The same should be completed within six months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

3) If no adjudication proceedings is initiated within the

above period, the respondents shall release the bank

guarantee and the release of the vehicle as per the order

dtd. 12.9.2013 will be absolute.