IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33311 of 2006(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- 1. MAVELIKKARA TALUK RATION CARD HOLDERS, ASSOCIATION, P.B.NO.1, MANKAMKUZHY-690 558, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR.G.SAMUEL. 2. N.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, SURESH BHAVANAM, PONNAZHAMURI, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. 4. C.K.BHASKARA KURUP, LICENCY ARD 163 OF MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. A.N.ABRAHAM, LICENCY ARD 168 OF MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.T.R.RAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 33311 of 2006(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RATION CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/12/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.33311/2006-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners approached this Court challenging the revocation of suspension of ARD 163 of Mavelikkara Taluk. The first petitioner is an association of Ration Card Holders and the second petitioner is a card holder. 2. The fourth respondent is the authorised retail distributor of ARD 163 of Mavelikkara Taluk. The licence was suspended for some period on account of alleged irregularities and that was attached to the shop of the fifth respondent. It is submitted that the same was revoked and the third respondent has permitted the fourth respondent to re-open the Ration shop. Mainly it is contended that the shifting of the shop will cause inconvenience to the card holders. 3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the shop has already been shifted in the year 2006 and there are no complaints as of now. W.P.(C). No.33311/2006 -:2:- 4. In the light of the above, no further orders are called for in the writ petition. If at all any genuine grievance was there, the remedy was only to approach the statutory authorities. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms