IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22101 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SHEEJA K.M., MARAMPARARAMBATH HOUSE, PALATH P.O., CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 5. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 6. M.M. AYISHA, METHAL MUTHIYERI HOUSE, PALATH P.O., CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.NARAYANAN. R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 22101 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT While working as a sales woman in ARD No.71 in Ward No.3 of the Chelannur Panchayat in Kozhikode Taluk, a notification Ext.P1 was issued by the Taluk Supply Officer inviting applications for appointment of a dealer in ARD No.71. Petitioner applied for the same. She was originally recommended, but, a complaint was filed by the 6th respondent alleging that the petitioner was not a resident in that locality. By Ext.P4 order, the 6th respondent was appointed. This was affirmed in Ext.P5. But in Ext.P6, the second respondent Commissioner of Civil Supplies remitted the matter to the District Collector for fresh consideration. The District Collector third respondent then appointed the petitioner as a dealer as per Ext.P7. This was challenged by the 6th respondent in Ext.P8 Revision and that was allowed as per Ext.P9. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Ext.P13 revision before the Government and that has now been rejected as per Ext.P15 order. Ext.P15 is challenged in the writ petition. W.P.(C). No. 22101 OF 2009 2 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the 6th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Ext.P15 does not reflect a consideration of relevant aspects. The Government exercises statutory powers under Clause 45 (10)(2) of the Rationing Order. Grounds of challenge are to be considered. That has not been done. The matter requires a reconsideration by the Government. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P15 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P13 after hearing the petitioner and 6th respondent. Status quo shall continue till such fresh orders are passed by the Government. The revision shall be disposed of within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/