Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1508 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Shamsuddin E.

2025-05-28

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This writ appeal was listed last week and no one appeared on behalf of the 1 st respondent to argue the matter. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to today. Even today, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent remains absent. As service is complete, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ appeal, filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 23819 of 2015, which came to be allowed, restraining the present appellants from insisting on the 1 st respondent obtaining a license and registration, as his turnover is less than Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) for carrying on the activity being a petty vendor. 3. The facts of the case are that the 1 st respondent is a transporter of vegetables, who approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- "I) Call for the entire records leading to the decision to insist for the Certificate and the Identity Card issued by the Health Department of the neighbouring States for the purpose of bringing vegetables and fruits from the other States to Kerala; II) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction thereby command the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 8 not to insist for the Certificate and the Identity Card Issued by the Health Department of the neighbouring States to bring vegetables and fruits from the other States to Kerala, in view of the Ext. P1 License; III) Issue a Writ or direction thereby declare that the vehicles which are bringing the vegetables to Kerala on the basis of Ext. P1 License are not required to obtain any other License; IV) And Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem just fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after considering the question involved in the case that 'Whether the petty vendor, as per the provisions of section 31(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act , 2006, (hereinafter refered to as 'Act of 2006') is required to obtain a license and registration?' 5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after considering the question involved in the case that 'Whether the petty vendor, as per the provisions of section 31(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act , 2006, (hereinafter refered to as 'Act of 2006') is required to obtain a license and registration?' 5. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that, since no material was placed on record by the present appellants to establish that the 1 st respondent is not a petty shop keeper as his turn over is more than Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only). 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants not to insist for license and registration. It is submitted that a counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent which clearly stated that, as per FoSCoS, 1 st respondent had renewed his State License No. 11315002001004 in 2017, which was valid only up to 13.07.2019. Currently, the 1 st respondent has no valid license after 13.07.2019. Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed not to insist for the license. The order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 7. Heard Adv. Sri. Grashious Kuriakose, Additional Director of Prosecution and Adv. Smt. Chitra P. George, the learned standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 8. Admittedly, the 1 st respondent has not produced any license renewed after 13.07.2019, which is mandatorily required to be issued under Section 31 of the Act of 2006. In absence of the same, no business can be carried out by the 1 st respondent. On perusal of the prayer clause, it is seen the relief which has been granted by the learned Single Judge is out of context. In fact the 1 st respondent had prayed that the appellant should not insist for the Certificate and the Identity Card issued by the department of the neighboring states for the purpose of bringing vegetables and fruits from other states to Kerala and that to declare that the vehicles which are bringing the vegetables to Kerala are on the basis of Ext.P1 license and therefore the 1 st respondent is not required to obtain any other license. However, the learned Single Judge has wrongly came to the conclusion that, the petitioner is not a petty shop keeper as his turnover is more than Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only). 9. In the present case, there is no issue of turn over at all. The basic issue which is to be considered is that, the 1 st respondent should possess the license or registration as envisaged under provisions of Section 31 of the Act which is admittedly not available on record. 10. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 23819 of 2015 is set aside. The writ appeal stands allowed, no order as to costs.