AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner is a licencee under the Kerala Food Grains Dealers Licencing Order, 1967. It is stated that the 5th Respondent was working as her manager and that his appointment was terminated by Ext.P2 agreement. The case of the Petitioner is that despite termination as above, the 5th Respondent purchased 1650 bags of rice in the name of the Petitioner and stocked the same in his godown. Coming to know of the same, Petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the 1st Respondent and at her instance, the stock of rice was seized. In this writ petition, what the Petitioner says is that, since the purchase has been made in her name, the seller will demand payment of price from her, and therefore, the seized stock should be released to her.
Going by the case pleaded by the Petitioner, misusing the Petitioner''s licence and her sales tax registration, 5th Respondent has purchased the stock of rice. Therefore, if the case of the Petitioner is accepted, the liability for paying to the seller of the stock is that of the 5th Respondent and there is no reason to think that the Petitioner should accept such liability. In any case, as the case of the Petitioner is that the stock of rice was purchased by the 5th Respondent, Petitioner can have no claim to get the rice released to her. Therefore, I am not inclined to direct the authorities to release the stock of rice to the Petitioner.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.