IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27671 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------ THOTTUNGARA BALAN,S/O.CHANDU, AGED 57 YEARS,PERAVOOR P.O, THALSSERY TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN 670001 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR .PIN 670001 3. K.BABY SURESH,S/O.RAJAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL, MURINGODI, PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN 670673 BY GOVERNMENT PLADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27671 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF MASS COMPLAINT DATED 7.3.2011 OF THE RATION CARD HOLDERS UNDER ARD NO. 186 OF THALASSERY TALUK TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.7.2011 IN WP(C) NO.17819/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD OF JOHNSON MATHEW AND HIS CORRESPONDING LEDGER. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2011 IN WP(C) NO.21288/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.10.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27671 of 2011 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Against the revocation of suspension of the third respondent, who was appointed as ARD No.186 of Thalassery Taluk, petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by Ext.P6 order as belated. However, the District Collector made an observation enabling the petitioner to file a fresh application before the DSO for taking action under the Rationing Order. Accordingly, petitioner filed Ext.P7 before the DSO and in this writ petition, what is sought for is a prayer for its consideration. 2. In my view, Ext.P7 cannot be said to be one filed under any of the provisions of the Rationing Order and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a statutory application. Therefore, I am not inclined to issue any direction for consideration of Ext.P6. If aggrieved, the remedy of the petitioner against Ext.P6 is to file a further appeal before the W.P.(C) No.27671/2011 : 2 : Commissioner, in which event, it will be dealt with in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/19/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge