The provisions of the Removal of Licensing Requirements Order, 2002 were held inapplicable due to prior amendments, impacting the legality of the prosecution against the petitioner.

ORDER

These two cases are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a common order. The petitioner in these cases are one and the same.

2. The petitioner claims to be a wholesale food grain dealer doing business in the name and style 'Star Traders' after obtaining a licence from Kaiparambu Grama Panchayat. According to him, he is an authorised dealer in rice, sugar, wheat and its products. The said business is being conducted in building No. X/171 of Kaiparambu Grama Panchayat taken on lease from Smt.P.A.Thankamma. He claims that he is maintaining true and correct accounts of the business. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the instance of rivals in the field, on 24.04.2008, the District Supply Officer, Thrissur and party inspected the business premises of the petitioner and seized 24 quintals of Matta rice in 48 bags, 37.62 quintals of raw rice in 76 bags, 12.87 quintals of boiled rice in 26 bags, 100 kgs of wheat in 2 bags, 27 quintals of matta rice in 36 bags, 13.50 quintals of boiled rice in 18 bags, 57.75 quintals of raw rice in 77 bags totalling 172.74 quintals of food grains and 48.15 quintals of paddy in 118 bags. All the rice and the wheat seized by the officials is part of the stock- in-trade of the petitioner and the paddy seized was procured by harvesting the paddy fields owned by his family in Palakkad District is the submission. It is also submitted that the stock of food grains is supported by purchase bills and invoices. According to the petitioner, under the provisions contained in Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits & Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002 (for short 'Order, 2002'), he is entitled to deal with the items without any restrictions whatsoever or without obtaining any licence under the Act or the Rationing Order. He obtained the entire food stuffs from the open market, which are supported by bills, invoices and vouchers and duly accounted for in the stock register, is the submission. The authorities do not have a case that the quantity of wheat seized was derived from any wholesale or retail dealer in the State is the further submission. According to the petitioner, he has been implicated only for the reason that the bags contained the emblems of the Supplyco and the FCI. From time to time, they used to conduct sale of items to maintain market price and prevent excess stock, is the submission. The bagged grains were sold by the FCI in gunny bags weighing 50 kgs which carry stenciled emblems, such bags containing the markings of FCI are not taken back by them and are freely available in the open market for re-packing. There is no difference in the bags available in the open market and in the ration shops is the further submission. The petitioner obtained such bags containing emblem of the Supplyco from the open market is the submission.

3. Immediately after the seizure of the above items on 25.04.2008, the petitioner made a claim petition before the District Collector for getting back the food grains. His application was supported by documents like licence, purchase bills etc. is the submission. He also produced the concerned registers before the authorities. But, the District Collector behind the back of the petitioner, obtained some report of the sample analysis and conducted a farce of a hearing, passed an order repelling the claim of the petitioner and directing to initiate further proceedings under the Act and the Kerala Rationing Order. Though the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and then revision