IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18686 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER --------------------------------------- SHAJAHAN.V.Y.,S/O.YACOB, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI. THOMAS.T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.A.THANKAMMA, AUTHORISED WHOLESALE DEALER NO.1(UNDER SUSPENSION) KOTHAPARAMBU,S.N.PURAM,KODUNGALLOOR-680 668. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R2 SMT.S.AMINA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18686 of 2008(Y) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER NO.B1846/07 (3) DATED 24.9.2007. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P. NO. 1782/2007 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 27.9.2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5.11.2007. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 35428/20078 DATED 30.11.2007. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.12.2007. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 35428/2007 DATED 30.11.2007. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. F.10.4018/07 DATED 17.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.4.2008. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. (CS) A.8-8738/08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.5.2008. / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P (C) .No. 18686 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order whereby the Commissioner of Civil Supplies has rejected his application for impleading himself as a party to an appeal filed by the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Rationing Order. According to the petitioner, from Ext.P7 order from which the present appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent itself, it can be seen that it was pursuant to the petitioner's intervention that Ext.P7 order came to be passed. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records resulting in Exhibit P9 order, scrutinize and quash the same; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P8 petition afresh with notice to the petitioner along with the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent against Exhibit P7 order;” 2. The 2nd respondent vehemently opposes the same. According to her, the appeal preferred by her is a statutory W.P (C) .No. 18686 of 2008 - 2 - appeal as per the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order. In such proceedings, the Kerala Rationing Order does not envisage impleading of 3rd parties and hearing them. She would submit that unlike in proceedings in a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the statutory appellate authorities do not have power to implead 3rd parties. She also relies on the decision of the Court in Ahamed V. State of Kerala (1983 KLT Short Notes 19, Case No.32). 3. I have heard the rival contentions in detail. 4. May be the petitioner as a well meaning citizen, has brought certain facts of the case to the attention of the appropriate authorities while passing Ext.P7 order. May be the District Collector while passing Ext.P7 order has referred to the role of the petitioner in the matter. But it remains a fact that the present appeal in which the petitioner seeks to be impleaded is a statutory appeal filed by the 2nd respondent before the appellate authority under W.P (C) .No. 18686 of 2008 - 3 - the Kerala Rationing Order. The Kerala Rationing Order does not envisage impleading of additional parties in a statutory appeal, that too of 3rd parties. In the decision in Ahamed's case (Supra), a learned Single Judge of the Court has held thus : “The Controller of Rationing has arrogated to himself a jurisdiction not vested in him under law. It should be remembered that the powers exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Court in adjudicating, what is now familiarly known as “public interest litigation” treating letters or complaints as petitions filed in court is so done in exercise of the powers vested in such courts to issue prerogative writs and/or/order or direction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. Such powers are very wide in content and import. It is settled law that the powers vested in the High Courts content and import. It is settled law that the powers vested in the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised suo motu. Thus in exercise of the powers under Article 226 and/or/Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court is enabled to issue prerogative writs or other orders or directions and to remedy injustice when it is brought to its notice. The power exercised by the Supreme Court and High Courts, flows from the Constitution, which is the paramount law of the Nation unlike the powers vested in Statutory Authorities like the Controller of Rationing, under a particular statute or statutory order. The jurisdiction or powers of the statutory authorities, which are creatures of particular statutes, should be only as enshrined within the framework and express provision specified in the respective statutes. Their powers are limited and they cannot claim any prerogative jurisdiction or powers.” I am inclined to agree with the said decision. W.P (C) .No. 18686 of 2008 - 4 - Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner has no right to be impleaded as a party to the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent. That being so, Ext.P9 does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner thinks it fit, it would be open to him to file a public interest litigation, if ultimately the appeal ends in an order favourable to the 2nd respondent, challenging that order, if he is legally entitled to maintain such petition. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs