IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35539 of 2010(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- N.PRASANNAKUMAR,SREE CHITHIRA, KARTHIKAPPALLY PO,MAHADEVIKADU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OMPRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA ,REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SE CRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 5. VENU,THARAPPATTU HOUSE, MAHADEVIKADU PO, KARTHIKAPPALLY,ALAPPUZHA - 680 555. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35539 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the 4th respondent, inviting application for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor for ARD No.146/Karthikappally. Among others, the petitioner and the 5th respondent were also applicants. After a process of selection, 5th respondent was appointed by Ext.P2 order. 2. Against this action, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal to the 2nd respondent. After hearing the appeal, along with other appeals filed, Ext.P3 appeal was rejected by Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved by this order, Ext.P5 revision was filed by the petitioner, which was also considered along with the other revisions and was rejected by Ext.P6 order. The second revision filed before the Government was also rejected by Ext.P8. It is challenging the afore said orders, this writ petition has been filed. 3. There are two contentions in the writ petition and these contentions were urged by the counsel. First one is that, Ext.P1 2 W.P.(C).No.35539 of 2010 notification required the applicants to furnish solvency for ` 30,000/-. It is stated that, in Ext.P1 it was also provided that, those who do not have solvency of their own, should furnish solvency from others. According to the petitioner, the latter category of the applicants could have been considered, only in the absence of applicants belonging to the former category, viz., applicants with their own solvency. The other contention raised is that, the 5th respondent is not a resident of Ward No.10, in relation to which the application was invited. 3. As far as the first contention is considered, a reading of Ext.P1, the notification, itself demonstrates that, there was no distinction made among the applicants as sought, to be made out by the petitioner. Therefore, that plea of the petitioner has no force and has been rightly rejected concurrently by all authorities. 4. In so far as the second contention is concerned, that the 5th respondent is not a resident of Ward No.10, neither before the District Collector nor before the appellate authority or the 3 W.P.(C).No.35539 of 2010 revisional authorities, did the petitioner raise such a contention. Therefore, I am persuaded to allow the petitioner to raise this contention for the first time in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/