IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 1090 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2193/2008 Dated 18/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ V.PADMAKUMAR, KATTAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTOOR, KUTTICHAL (P.O), ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SMT. N.SREEKALA, S.K.SADANAM, KOTTOOR, KOTTOOR (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R1 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI FOR R1 SMT.REENA THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.L.RAM MOHAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, T.B.RAMANI FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.No.1090 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the Government Order upholding the appointment of the 1st respondent as the Authorised Ration Distributor in Kavadimoola ward at Kuttichal Panchayat. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for other respondents. 3. After hearing both sides and after going through the records, we notice that one of the requirement for appointment is that the applicant should be a local resident within the ward of the Panchayat, where the shop is located. Except the 1st revisional authority, all other authorities came to the conclusion W.A.No.1090/2008 2 that the appellant was not residing within the Panchayat in which the ration shop was located. The counsel for the 1st respondent relied on voters list and other documents to prove that the appellant was a resident of Aryanadu Panchayat. Eventhough the appellant's counsel disputed this factual point, we do not think there is any scope for us to settle a disputed question on facts in Writ Appeal. The learned Single Judge has relied on the findings entered by the lower authorities, who conducted enquiry and allowed evidence to be produced. Since the original authority, the 1st appellate authority and the 2nd revisional authority found that the appellant was not residing within the Panchayat, where the shop is located, the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the appellant's claim for appointment in preference to 1st respondent. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal as devoid of merit. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps