IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 282 of 2010(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- V.SANTHOSH KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, APVN FOOD GRAINS, T-22. KATTAKADA, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM. BY MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN, ADVOCATE MR.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. BY MR.P.NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.282 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is an authorized wholesale Ration Distributor No.22 at Kattakada, Thiruvananthapuram. During the year 1994 i.e. from 01.01.1994 to 06.02.1994, the petitioner and others were directed to remit the differential cost on the stock. This was challenged in O.P.No.5709/1994 and Exhibit P1 is the copy of the judgment in the said O.P. This Court disposed of the Original Petition on the basis of the undertaking of the Government Pleader that the excess remitted will be refunded. The petitioner had in the meanwhile remitted various amounts and again when a notice was issued to remit an amount of Rs.91,649/-, a subsequent writ petition was filed as O.P.No.6365/2000 in which the demand notice was quashed. 2. It appears that there were several proceedings in the meanwhile and the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.282/2010 2 W.P.(C)No.26767/2006 wherein Exhibit P3 judgment was rendered. The 1st respondent passed an order as per Exhibit P4 directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.95,186.67/- which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner has already approached the Government in the matter by filing Exhibit P5 appeal. It is prayed that the appeal may be directed to be disposed of within a time frame and the application for interim relief may also be directed to be considered. The appeal is dated 08.01.2010. In the light of the urgency shown by the petitioner, there will be a direction to the Government to take a decision on Exhibit P5 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is stated that the petitioner has already moved a stay petition. Therefore, there will also be a direction to the Government to take a decision on the stay petition within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Till W.P.(C) No.282/2010 3 orders are passed in the stay petition, Exhibit P4 will not be implemented. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp