The judgment established the interpretation and application of the Kerala Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order 1974 and Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act in the context of confiscation of essential commodities.

JANAKI AMMA, J.

On 7-2-1979 the Tahsildar Trichur got information that the third revision petitioner herein had stocked 215 bags of cement in House No. 262 in Ward No. 1 of Ollukkara Panchayath, in violation of the Kerala Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order 1974. He seized the cement and sealed the room wherein the bags were kept in exercise of the powers under clause 14(1)(e) of the said Order read with Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. A report was sent to the District Collector as regards the seizure of the cement. The District Collector issued a notice on 15-2-1979 calling upon the third petitioner to appear before him on 21-2-1979 and show cause with the connected documents and records, if any, why the unauthorised stock of cement seized should not be confiscated to Government.

2. On 14-2-1979 petitioners 1 and 2 presented a petition before the District Collector claiming that the bags of cement seized from the premises of the third petitioner belonged to them. Their case was as follows : The first petitioner's uncle Gopalan Nair as the tavazhi karnavan had applied for cement and obtained 150 bags on 18-12-1978. Before the cement could be taken to his house Gopalan Nair fell ill. He died after two months. He had entrusted the cement with the third petitioner for safe custody. On account of his death the proposed construction could not be taken up for some time. It was felt that the carrying of the cement to the house would be painful to the griefstricken members of the family. The cement continued to be stored in the premises of the third petitioner. The balance 65 bags was owned by the second petitioner. The second petitioner wanted to construct a house in the name of his wife, Sarojini, and got a permit on 12-10-78 for 150 bags of cement. The cement was purchased on 16-10-78. Immediately after the purchase Sarojini fell ill and her illness took a serious turn. Therefore the second petitioner could not proceed with the construction. It was felt that the cement bags if kept at the work-spot would get damaged and therefore the third petitioner, who was a friend of the second petitioner, was approached and with his permission 65 bags of cement which remained to be used were kept in the premises of the third petitioner. Petitioners 1 and 2 requested the Collector that the cement be returned to them.

3. On 15-2-1979 the third petitioner in response to the notice of the District Collector filed objections stating that the cement did not belong to him and that the 150 bags belonged to the uncle of the first petitioner and the remaining 65 bags to the wife of the second petitioner. The circumstances under which the bags were kept in his premises are also detailed in his objection.

4. The District Collector heard the petitioners through their Advocates and having examined the details in the light of the materials made available rejected the case put forward by the petitioners and directed confiscation of the 215 bags of cement in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section 14(1)(e) of the Kerala Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1974.

5. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of confiscation before the District and Sessions Judge, Trichur. Since the Civil Courts stood closed for mid-summer recess the appeal was presented on 10-4-1979 before this Court. After the records were sent over to the District and Sessions Judge it was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1979. The Sessions Judge made over the appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge. It would appear that one of the grounds on which the appeal was dismissed was that the permits issued to Gopalan Nair and Sarojini were for imported cement whereas the cement seized from the premises of the third petitioner took in 22 bags of Indian cement. In the memorandum of appeal a case was put forward by the petitioners that the 22 bags really contained