IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34209 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALL KERALA RETAIL RATION DEALERS- ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.540/89, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, P.O.KUMARAN. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES (C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES- CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, TALUK DEPOT, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADDL. RESPONDENTS: * 4. THE CHAVAKKAD FIRKA CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LIMITED NO.F.1250, CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR – 680 506, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. *5. K.K.ASOKAN, AGED 40, S/O.KANDARU, KOROT HOUSE, P.O.CHAVAKKAD, MUTHUVATTOOR DESOM, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, SECRETARY, INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS HEADLOAD WORKERS ASSOCIATION, MUTHUVATTOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. * (ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 15171/08 DT.10.12.2008. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 15525/08 DT. 10.12.2008.) WPC 34209/08 ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO FOR R2 & 3 SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.RAJIT FOR ADDL.R5 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 34209 OF 2008-V ----------------------------------------- Dated 10th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is All Kerala Retail Rational Dealers Association, Chavakkad Taluk Unit, represented by its President. The ration dealers of Chavakkad Taluk were being supplied with rationed articles from a godown located at Chavakkad. The petitioner submits, it is a central place in the Taluk and it is convenient for all the ration dealers to lift rationed articles from there. The godown is functioning in the building owned by the Chavakkad Firka Co-operative Rural Bank Limited. When there was a proposal to shift it from there, representations were filed by the petitioner and others and they were assured by the Government that the Civil Supplies Corporation has not, so far, taken any decision to shift the godown. This is evident from Exts.P1 and P2 communications. If the 2nd respondent Corporation, which is authorised by the Government to stock rationed articles and WPC 34209/2008 2 supply to the authorised ration dealers, required more facilities, the same was offered by the aforementioned Co-operative Bank to the said Corporation, as evident from Ext.P4 communication. While so, now a decision is taken to shift the godown to a place, very near to the boundary of the Taluk on the southern side bordering Kodungallur Taluk. In the above background, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to shift the now existing civil supplies godown of Chavakkad Taluk to any other place.” The petitioner submits, the godown is being shifted from a convenient place to a very inconvenient place without any valid reason or justification. The members of the petitioner Association are seriously affected and they are not able to discharge properly their duty to distribute rationed articles in accordance with the Kerala Rationing Order. The impleading petitioner in I.A.15171/2008 (the Co-operative Bank), which has leased out its godown at Chavakkad to the Supplyco, supported the contentions of the writ petitioner. The impleading petitioner in I.A.No.15525/2008, who is representing the headload WPC 34209/2008 3 workers of the present godown, also supported the contentions of the writ petitioner and added that for political reasons, the shifting is being made. According to him, the shifting has no nexus with the interest or efficiency of the administration. 2. The learned standing counsel for the Civil Supplies Corporation submitted that a Division Bench of this Court, as per the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12887/2004, ordered that the Civil Supplies Corporation and other public sector undertakings under the control of the State Government shall, as far as possible, use the warehousing facilities provided by the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation. It was a writ petition filed by the Employees' Association of the said Corporation. Unless there are special grounds, in view of the said decision, the Civil Supplies Corporation was bound to shift its godown and utilise the facilities offered by the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation. The present shifting is to a godown owned and operated by the said Corporation. So, the Supplyco has taken the above decision in obedience to the direction issued by this Court, it is submitted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in answer, submitted WPC 34209/2008 4 that even after the above judgment was rendered by this Court, the Supplyco stuck to the stand that it does not propose to shift the godown, as evident from Exts.P1 and P2. 4. But, in this case, we feel that even assuming the decision of the 2nd respondent Corporation to shift its godown is unwise or foolish, this Court has no jurisdiction to intervene, unless such decision is shown to be illegal. No statute governing the shifting of a godown has been brought to our notice. In other words, by taking the impugned decision to shift the godown from the present place, the 2nd respondent has not violated any statutory provision. This Court is only concerned with the illegality of the decisions taken by the Corporation and not with its wisdom. Persons in authority, who are answerable to the legislature, can take wise or foolish decisions. But, this Court can interfere, if only it is shown to be illegal. If foolish decisions are taken, the remedy of the affected persons lies at the ballot and not before the court. This Court, which is not answerable to the people or to the legislature, cannot take any decision in these matters. On the contrary, if the Government take a wrong decision, it can be criticized WPC 34209/2008 5 and correction can be sought by the affected public and in certain cases, the Government can be persuaded to rescind its decision also. That is how a democratic Government functions under our constitutional scheme. Going by the separation of powers, this Court cannot interfere with an administrative decision taken by the Government or the Civil Supplies Corporation, on the ground that it is an unwise decision. In this case, the learned counsel for the union submitted that if the godown of Chavakkad Taluk is shifted to Thiruvananthapuram, it may be an ultra vires decision. But, it is only a hypothetical case. In this case, the godown has been shifted to a place in the very same Taluk and it is being housed in the godown facilities provided by the Warehousing Corporation also. So, the said contention does not appeal to us. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/