IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2767 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.L.SIJO, ARD NO.338/TCR, S/O. LONAPPAN, KETTICKAL HOUSE, P.O.KUTTANELLUR. BY ADVS.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR-676 101. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR-676 101. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2767 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the ARD 338 of Ollur Panchayat. On 25.2.2006, a Special Squad of the Civil Supplies Department inspected the business premises of the petitioner. On such inspection, it was found that damaged stock of 25 kg matta rice and 250 kgs of wheat, which were not good for distribution, were kept in the depot. Various documents were not produced for inspection, shortage of stock was found and the licensee was absent and his brother was conducting the business. On these and other allegations, after complying all procedural formalities, Ext.P6 order was issued by the 3rd respondent, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The Commissioner considered the matter and issued Ext.P7 order, rejecting the appeal finding that gross irregularities were committed by the dealer. A revision was filed before the Government, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8. That revision was W.P (C) No.2767 of 2011 2 also rejected as per Ext.P9 order. Although , the statute did not provide for any review still petitioner filed a review petition. It would appear that review petition was entertained and an order of stay was initially granted. But however, the review petition was also rejected by Ext.P10 order. In the meantime notification was also issued for appointing a dealer. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings the writ petition is filed. 3. A reading of Ext.P6, the order of the 3rd respondent, shows the irregularities committed by the petitioner. On materials these irregularities were proved and the nature of irregularities cannot be said to be anything other than the grave. In such circumstances, dealership of the petitioner was ordered to be terminated. This order of termination was upheld by the appellate and revisional authority concurrently. 4. Having regard to the unassailable findings contained in Ext.P6, which have been concurrently upheld by the appellate and revisional authority and as the petitioner has not made out anything to hold that the W.P (C) No.2767 of 2011 3 findings are perverse, I do not find any reason to accept the case of the petitioner. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge