IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32260 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJU FRANCIS,ARD 284, KORATTY EAST P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 121 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32260/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PAGES 1,2 AND 3 OF THE INSPECTION BOOK EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE,DATED 02.09.2011 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE 47 OF THE INSPECTION BOOK EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE 20 OF THE DAILY SALES REGISTER EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF PAGES 38 AND 39 OF THE DAILY SALES REGISTER //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32260 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has been appointed as ARD No.284 of Mukundapuram Taluk. In this writ petition filed by him on 2/12/2011, he sought a declaration that the licence of the petitioner is not liable to be suspended pending enquiry. According to the petitioner, the shop in question was inspected by the respondent on 23/11/11 and that only on 2/12/2011, he was informed that his licence was being suspended. It is on this premise, seeking consequential reliefs, the writ petition has been filed. 2. However instructions obtained by the learned Government Pleader would show that, on 28/11/11, proceedings were issued suspending the licence of the petitioner. The allegations based on which suspension has been ordered include shortage of stock, irregularities in the maintenance of records etc., which certainly are grave in nature. It is also stated that when attempt was made to serve a copy of the order, the same could not be served on the petitioner due to his nonavailability. WPC No.32260/11 :2 : 3. From the submissions thus made by the learned Government Pleader, it is obvious that when the writ petition was filed, proceedings were already issued suspending the licence of the petitioner. Now that such a proceedings have been issued, the remedy available to the petitioner is also provided under Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy against the order of suspension. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp