IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11522 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOLLY ROY,VETTIKKOMPIL HOUSE, MICHAELGIRI.PO,MARAYOOR,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ANIL K.NARENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM,VIKAS BHAVAN.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE,KUYILIMALA,PAINAV.PO,IDUKKI-685603. 4. SRI.K.V.MADHU,MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.HIGHRANGE WHOLESALERS,BUILDING NO.4/123, ADIMALY.PO,IDUKKI-685 561. 5. P.R.MADHAVAN,PACHOLIL HOUSE,KUTHUPARA, VELLATHOOVAL.PO,IDUKKI-685 563. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, R4 BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, MR.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN, R5 BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.R.REENA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NOS. 9975/2009 & 10027/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11522/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 21/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.3, INVITING APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS PERMANENT LICENSEE OF AWD NO. IX AT ADIMALY IN DEVIKULAM TALUK IN IDUKKI DISTRICT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 09/08/2005 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, ADIMALI, REGARDING THE BUILDING OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER FOR STORAGE OF RATIONED ARTICLES, ALONG WITH SKETCH OF THE BUILDING. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER FOR STORAGE OF RATIONED ARTICLES. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD 17/06/05 ISSUED TO M/S. HIGHRANGE WHOLESALERS BY THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF VOTERS LIST DTD. NIL OF DEVIKULAM ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, PREPARED BY THE YEAR 2005. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE VOTERS LIST DTD. NIL OF MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPAL WARD, PREPARED IN THE YEAR 2005. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRCT OF THE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY-2005 DTD. NIL OF ERNAKULAM SECONDARY SWITCHING AREA. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN WHILE THE R.4. WAS PERSONALLY CONDUCTING BUSINESS AT MARKET ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 18/08/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE R.4. BEFORE THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, DEVIKULAM. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REDUCTION CERTIFICATE DTD. 09/08/2005 OBTAINED BY THE R.4. FROM THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE DTD. 12/08/2005, OBTAINED BY THE R.4. FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 16/08/2005, OBTAINED BY THE R.4. FROM ADIMALY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 18/08/2005 OF THE R.4. FORWARDING EXHIBIT P.10 TO 12 CERTIFICATES TO THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, DEVIKULAM. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 29/09/2005 OF THE R.3. APPOINTED THE R.4. AS PERMANENT LICENSEE OF AWD NO.IX AT ADIMALY. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 12/06/2007 OF THE R.2. ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE R.5. W.P.(C). NO.11522/2009-I: EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/07/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P. (C).NO.32990/2007-B. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/03/2009, THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE R.4. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C)s.11522, 10027 & 9975/2009 ....................... Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The challenge in all these writ petitions is against an order passed by the Government dismissing a revision filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10027/2009 under the Kerala Rationing Order. Petitioners in the other two revisions were also parties to the said revision. They are also aggrieved by the same and hence these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader as well. I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.11522/2009 for the sake of convenience. 3. By Ext.P1, District Collector issued a notification inviting applications from eligible applicants for appointment as permanent licensee of AWD No.IX at Adimali in Devikulam Tauk. Seven W.P.(C).11522/09 & Connected Cases 2 persons including the petitioners in these three writ petitions applied. Ultimately by Ext.P14 order dated 29.9.2005, the District Collector proceeded to hold that the petitioner in W.P.(C).10027/2009 namely the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).11522/2009, is eligible and directed grant of the dealership. This was challenged in an appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. 4. In the meanwhile, a complaint had been filed before the Lok Ayukta alleging maladministration in the matter of grant of authorized wholesale dealership at Adimali. The Lok Ayukta proceeded to hold that the wholesale dealership should not be granted in favour of a firm. This order was challenged by the grantee in W.P.(C).32990/07. The said writ petition is still pending. 5. The appeal filed against Ext.P14 order was taken up for consideration by the Commissioner who proceeded to set aside Ext.P14 and directed a fresh consideration by the District Collector. As per W.P.(C).11522/09 & Connected Cases 3 Ext.P15 order, the Commissioner made it clear that his order will be subject to the orders by the Lok Ayukta passed in complaint No.2115/05 and another writ petition filed by the earlier grantee of AWD No.IX challenging cancellation of his licence, as writ petition No.16662/05. The order passed by the Lok Ayukta, as mentioned above, (produced as Ext.P3 in writ petition No.9975/05) was challenged by the grantee namely the petitioner in Writ petition No.10027/09, in Writ Petition No.32990/07. The operation of the order was stayed by this Court. During the pendency of the same, petitioner in Writ Petition No.10027/2009 challenged Ext.P15 order passed by the Commissioner in a revision under clause 71 of the Kerala Rationing Order before the Government. Petitioners in other two writ petitions were also parties to the same. Revision was not proceeded with possibly because of the pendency of Writ Petition No.32990/07. Therefore, on a motion made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.32990/07, this Court passed the following order as Ext.P16. W.P.(C).11522/09 & Connected Cases 4 “The learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 3, 5 and 6 also. Interim order is extended by one month. The pendency of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the Government disposing of Ext.P6 revision petition, filed by the petitioner without considering the findings in Ext.P11 order of the Lok Ayukta, which I have stayed in this writ petition.” 6. Accordingly, Government took up the revision petition and then proceeded to pass Ext.P17 order on 18.3.2009 The revision filed by the grantee was dismissed. But at the same time, Government directed the District Collector to invite fresh notification for appointment of licensee in AWD No.IX, at Adimali in Devikulam Taluk. It is this order which has been challenged in these three writ petitions. 7. The main contention taken up by all the three W.P.(C).11522/09 & Connected Cases 5 petitioners is that a perusal of the Government's order, Ext.P17, would show that the Government has been substantially influenced by the order of the Lok Ayukta. It is further contended by the petitioners in Writ petition Nos.11522/2009 and 9975/2009 that even if the Government decided to reject the revision of the grantee and thus affirm the order passed by the Commissioner, Government should not have proceeded to set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner and directed the District Collector to invite a fresh notification. 8. I have perused the order passed by the Government and I am satisfied that the Government should consider the revision filed by the grantee afresh and this shall be done without in any manner being influenced by the order passed by the Lok Ayukta on 29.10.2007. In other words, the matter requires a fresh look by the Government. 9. Accordingly, Ext.P17 order in W.P.(C). 11522/2009 is set aside and the Government is W.P.(C).11522/09 & Connected Cases 6 directed to pass fresh orders on the revision after hearing the petitioners in these three writ petitions. It is open to the parties to file argument notes before the competent authority which shall also be looked into. It is made clear that in proceeding to consider the revision, Government shall not be influenced by the findings of the Lok Ayukta in its order dated 29.10.2007, produced as Ext.P3 in W.P. (C).9975/2009. Government shall take an independent look at the revision and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, which shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs