IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37373 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- CHANDRAN, AGED 52, S/O. RAMAN EZHUTHACHAN, PODUVAYIL HOUSE, MAILAMPADAM, P.O. PAYYANADAM, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.REVI K. (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD– 678 001. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD – 678 001. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, MANNARKAD– 678 001. 5. V.K. ALAVI, VALLIKADAN HOUSE, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT– 678 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 37373 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the licensee of ARD No.96 of the Mailampadam area in Payyanadam Village of Mannarkad Taluk. In this writ petition he is objecting the proposal to establish a new ration shop at Mailampadam or in the nearby places. It is stated that if a new appointment is made, petitioner will loose about 200 card holders attached to his shop. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P4 and contends that in case such a new appointment is made, his shop will no longer be feasible and therefore the proposal for appointment of a new ARD should be stopped. 2. First of all, in the matter of appointment of ration dealers, primary concern to the authority should be safeguard the convenience of the ration card holders. In that process, if appointment of more ration dealers are necessary, that should always be encouraged. 3. In this case, the only grievance expressed by the petitioner is that, if a new dealer is appointed, that will result in reduction of card holders attached to his shop. This necessarily means that all that is sought to be protected is the commercial interest of the petitioner. I do not think that commercial interest W.P.(C).No.37373 OF 2010 2 of an existing ARD can be a valid reason to challenge proposal to appoint new ARDs. Therefore contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb