IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1355 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SYED MOHAMMED AMEEN BAFAKHY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SYED ABDULLAH BAFAKHY, SHIHAB MANZIL, P.O.PARAPPIL, IDIYANGARA, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SCRETARY TO FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC BUILDING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1355 OF 2011(T) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the licensee of ARD No.19 of West Hill, Beach Road, Calicut. By Ext.P2 order petitioner's licence was suspended, following the registration of a case against him by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. At that stage, petitioner approached this court and pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3 judgment in WP (c).No.20670/2007, the District Collector, considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and issued Ext.P4 order. Having regard to the facts of the case and also taking note of the letter issued by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to maintain the suspension, District Collector directed that the suspension of the petitioner will continue. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner passed Ext.P6 order rejecting the appeal and directing the District Collector to reconsider the matter depending upon the outcome of the vigilance enquiry. Against Ext.P6 order, petitioner filed Ext.P7 revision before the Government and that is rejected by the Government as per WPC.No. 1355/2011 :2 : Ext.P8. It is challenging these proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 2. First contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that an order of suspension could not have been passed, without hearing the affected parties. In support of this plea learned counsel for the petitioner relied on clause 51(8) of the Kerala Rationing Oder and the judgment of this court in Kumaranellur Co-operative M. Scoeity V. V.B.K. Menon (1985 KHC 420). The contention relying on clause 51(8), though at the first instance appear to be attractive, a closer reading of the provision would show that opportunity of hearing provided in the rule is applicable only in a situation where suspension is ordered as a punishment and not in a case where a licence is ordered to be suspended in contemplation of further proceedings against the licensee.The judgment relied on also does not lay down any principle to the contrary. Therefore, that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not impress me. 3. Learned counsel then contended that having regard to the facts of the case as disclosed, the suspension was not warranted. According to her, both the Commissioner and the WPC.No. 1355/2011 :3 : Government did not exercise the appellate and the revisional jurisdiction and therefore the matter needs interference by this court. 4. Admittedly irregularities have been noticed and proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Clause 51 (8) of the Rationing Order entitles the authorities to place such licensees under suspension. Therefore the order of suspension issued against the petitioner is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the respondents. A reading of Ext.P6, the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner would show that the Commissioner examined the entire facts of the case and having regard to the pendency of the proceedings before the Vigilance Authorities, the District Collector was directed to finalize the proceedings. It is this order which was confirmed in Ext.P8 revisional order of the Government. In my view, a reading of these orders do not persuade me to take a view that the Commissioner or the Government have not exercised their appellate or revisional powers. Therefore I am not in a position to agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and interfere with the order placing the petitioner WPC.No. 1355/2011 :4 : under suspension and its concurrent affirmation by the appellate and revisional authorities. Be that as it may, it is directed that the District Collector will carry out the directions contained in Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible on the production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/