IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5507 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PUSHPAKUMARI.S., W/O.CHANDRAN NAIR, COLASH, KUDANUR P.O., MELTHUKUNNAKAL VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM., LICENCE, SHOP TRL NO.117, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY RATIONING CONTROLLER, SOUTH ZONE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RATIONING INSPECTOR (VI), TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. B.USHA, LICENCE, RATION SHOP TRL NO.140, MURUKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5507 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the licence of the Ration Shop TRL No.117 of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The licence of the shop TRL 226 was suspended by order dated 4/8/2009 by the third respondent, the Taluk Supply Officer. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Mahazar prepared by the Rationing Inspector for handing over the shop TRL 266 to the petitioner. 2. By Ext.P2 according to the petitioner, the license of the shop TRL 266 which was attached to the petitioner was suspended. According to the petitioner, the license of the shop TRL 117 has not been suspended. The inspection was conducted and irregularities as alleged were detected only in respect of shop TRL 226. TRL 117 is located in Vengode in Mangalapuram Panchayat and TRL 266 is at Assembly Muck in the same Panchayat. It is stated that both are at a distance of 5.5 kms. 3. Presently the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 by which it is evident that the shop TRL No.117 has also been stopped by the fourth respondent and the goods have been entrusted to the fifth respondent who is the licensee of the shop W.P.(C)No.5507 of 2010 2 TRL No.140. It is the case of the petitioner, as revealed from the above averments, that there is no authority for the fourth respondent to close down the shop TRL.117 as the license of the said shop was not suspended as per Ext.P2 order. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that these two shops were being conducted by the petitioner after clubbing together and Ext.P2 applies for both the shops. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these two shops are situated at different places and suspension is only in respect of TRL.266. 4. If the petitioner approaches the first respondent in the matter by filing an appropriate representation, the first respondent will consider the same within a period of ten days. The petitioner will produce a copy of this writ petition along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj