IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23682 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PRAVISH S/O. PRABHAKARAN, THAIKATTU HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA BEACH, NATTIKA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR. P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, TRIVANDRUM. 5. SMT. USHA SUBRAMANYAM TEMPORARY LICENSEE, WHOLESALE DEPT NO.2, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 6. SRI. V.KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR ZAM ZAM TRADING CORPORATION, KOLAZHI, THRISSUR. 7. CIZHO CHANDRAN, REGITERED OWNER (KL8-H-7711 LORRY) THAIKOOT HOUSE, KIZHAKUMPATTU KARA, EAST FORT, THRISSUR-5. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 23682 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the 4th respondent, on an appeal under the Kerala Rationing Order. Petitioner is a ration card holder, and he claims that he is residing in Thajkkath in Nattika Village. 5th respondent was a temporary licencee of a wholesale Depot No.2 in Chavakkadu Taluk in Thrissur District. It is alleged that respondents 1 and 2 detected large scale illegal transportation of ration articles on 29.11.2008 and inter alia on the basis of such seizure, the third respondent District Collector had cancelled the licence in the name of the 5th respondent. It was further ordered that prosecution steps should be taken in relation to the vehicle and also respondents 5 to 7. 2. Respondents 5 to 7 had approached the Commissioner of Civil Supplies in revision. By Ext.P4 order, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies while affirming certain findings of the District Collector nevertheless exercised his discretion and directed the W.P.(C). No. 23682 OF 2009 2 licence in favour of 5th respondent need not be cancelled, but should be restored. Apparently, this view has been taken on the premise that the 5th respondent is a widow of the erstwhile licencee and therefore, on sympathetic consideration, her licence need not be cancelled. But other directions by way of realization of the value of the food grains taken into custody and forfeiture of the EMD ordered by the District Collector were affirmed. It is this order Ext.P4 that has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.K.Muhammed and learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. I am not satisfied with the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4. He merely says that he is the holder of a ration card. Even if it assumed that he is registered in a retail shop which in turn is attached to the wholesale dealership of the 5th respondent, he lacks the locus standi to challenge an order passed by a competent authority, on revision filed by a licencee, under the rationing order. It is up to the competent authorities under the rationing order to suspend a licence and revoke or restore the same, depending upon the circumstances. That is a W.P.(C). No. 23682 OF 2009 3 dispute between the licensor and the licencee. Revocation of the cancellation of the licence of the 5th respondent cannot bring about any adverse consequences to the petitioner, nor can the alleged illegality of Ext.P4 give rise to any cause of action in public interest. In these circumstances, I decline jurisdiction. The writ petition is bereft of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/