IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9933 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MARIYAM BEEVI,AGED 80 YEARS AWD-7, EDAMULACKAL PANCHAYAT PATHANPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DEPUTY RATIONING CONTROLLER SOUTHERN RANGE, KOLLAM 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY SUPPLY OFFICER PATHANAPURAM. 4. A.S. SALIM,AWD IX, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 9933 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 25, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P4, P4(a) and P5. 2. Ext.P4 shows that on inspection, irregularities were found in the wholesale depot of the petitioner and the distributorship was suspended pending enquiry. Ext.P4(a) is the mahazar that was prepared and Ext.P5 is the document evidencing entrustment of the articles seized from the petitioner to another AWD. Therefore, the correctness or otherwise of the action will depend upon the validity or otherwise of Ext.P4 order placing the petitioner under suspension. 3. The challenge against Ext.P4 has been raised on the ground that before issuing Ext.P4, the petitioner was not given a notice or opportunity to state her case. In order to sustain this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on clause 51(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order. WP(C) 9933/08 Page numbers 4. I have gone through the aforesaid order and I am not in a position to accept the contention raised by the counsel. Clause 51 (8) discloses that a notice and an opportunity to state her case need be given to the petitioner only when a punishment is imposed and not when suspension is ordered pending enquiry. No opportunity is contemplated under the rule when suspension is pending enquiry and this is evident from the rule itself which provides that “if considered necessary, he may suspend the appointment of the wholesale distributor temporarily pending enquiry”. Therefore Ext.P4 cannot be interfered on the ground that notice and opportunity was not given to the petitioner. 5. Once Ext.P4 is upheld, there is no question of interfering with Exts.P4(a) or P5. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-