IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36318 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE THRISSUR, CHAVAKKAD, KODUNGALLUR TALUK RATION DEALERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO. R.1042, THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.P.P.JOSE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. PHILIP, R/AT PANATTIL HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SRI. V.V.VINAYAKUMAR, ADDL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. T.A.JOSE AND COMPANY, AWD NO.III AND IV MUNDOOR AND KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR-680 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER E.O.LAWRENCE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 36318 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 judgment rendered in W.P(C) No.25580/2010, writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent, was disposed of with direction that the Government shall dispose of the revision filed by the 3rd respondent under Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is, instead of the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent is proceeding to hear the revision petition, which according to the petitioner, is in violation of the directions contained in the judgment. 2. However, on behalf of the 1st respondent, and 3rd respondent, it is now pointed out that the Officer, now holding the post of Secretary to Government, was the person who passed the order which is impugned in the revision and that it was therefore that the revision filed by the 3rd respondent was made over to the 2nd respondent. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader further points out that apart to the 1st respondent, the only person who can dispose of the matter in the Department is the 2nd W.P.(C).No. 36318 OF 2010 2 respondent. 3. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that only the 2nd respondent can hear and dispose of the revision filed by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the hearing now scheduled by the 2nd respondent on 08.12.2010. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb