IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 1940 of 2002(E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, CHEMBITHARA, PALLOM P.O., NATTAKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. P.P.RAJESH BABU, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL, NEAR S.N.D.P.MANDIRAM, PALLOM, NATTAKOM, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SMT.R.MAYA KRISHNAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.1940/2002 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.3440 OF 2002 IN O.P.NO.1940 CLOSED. 29.1.2009. SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.8/2001 DATED 1.1.2001 OF SUB REGISTRY, KOTTAYAM EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY ELIYAMMA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.76/2002 DTD 14.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NATTAKOM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BS.4-2106/2000 DATED 23.12.2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD 20.11.2001. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BS.9-5889/99 DTD 17.11.2000 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.1940 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a shop building, in which the 3rd respondent was conducting a ration shop. According to the petitioner, the said shop room was very old and in a dilapidated condition. As a result, the 3rd respondent is stated to have lost interest in conducting the shop and he was not being supplied ration articles consequent to which the shop was kept closed. Consequently, by Ext.P3, the licence issued to the 3rd respondent for conducting the shop was cancelled by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has now filed this original petition apprehending that the 3rd respondent has influenced the higher authority to get Ext.P3 order cancelled and to get the licence of the 3rd respondent restored. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i) To call for the record relating to Exts.P1 to P5 and to issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the Respondents 1 and 2 have no authority and power to cancel the cancellation order passed as per Ext.P3 in respect of ARD No.311 of Kottayam Taluk; O.P.No.1940/02 2 ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents 1 and 2 to cancel Ext.P3 order and also not to grant any permission to the 3 rd Respondent to conduct ration shop in the Petitioner's shop room bearing building No.225 in Ward No.IX of Nattakom Panchayat without the consent of the petitioner. Iii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders in Ext.P4”. Evidently, the attempt of the petitioner is to get the 3rd respondent evicted from the shop room. The petitioner has no case that any order cancelling Ext.P3 has been passed. As such, this original petition is premature. If and when Ext.P3 is cancelled, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same appropriately in accordance with law. So far, that event has not taken place going by the averments in the original petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.1940/02 3