IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 SA.No. 276 of 1999(G) -------------------------------- A.S.154/1996 of I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE O.S.426/1995 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------------- K.P.MUHAMMADALI HAJI, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, KIZHEKKE PALLIKKAL HOUSE, PANAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.M.C.SEN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN SRI.S.PRAKASH SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, NEDUNGOTTUR, KOZHIKODE. 3. M/S.O.K.AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER PAUL LOUIS, CHAITHANYA,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.A.NO.276/1999 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.774/1999 IN S.A.NO.276/1999 DISMISSED 01/03/2011 SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 276 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. 2. The suit was one for injunction. The plaintiff was a wholesale dealer of ration articles from 1994 onwards. He has the necessary licence. After the expiry of the initial period, the licence has been renewed upto 1998. Various facts were mentioned in the plaint, which are not very relevant for the present purpose. Suffice it to say, the plaintiff claims to have come to know that there is a move to detach certain ration shops allotted to the plaintiff and to give new dealership to somebody else. It is stated that the plaintiff made a representation to the defendant on 24.6.1995, but no reply was received by him. Apprehending further action, the plaintiff laid the suit. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit. They pointed out that the plaintiff had no vested right as such and S.A.276/1999. 2 it is purely a matter of discretion. Moreover, the licence given to the plaintiff was of a temporary nature and it is within the province of the administrative authorities to deal with the matter at any point of time and the plaintiff would not have any grievance against the action, if any, taken by the respondents. It was also pointed out that the suit was barred under the Essential Commodities Act. 4. It appears that the third defendant, who got impleaded, has filed a written statement pointing out that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff had no cause of action and he has no right to insist that no ration shop shall be de-linked. 5. On the above pleadings, issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A6 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants examined D.W.1 and had Exts.B1 to B18 marked. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal as A.S.154 of 1996. The lower S.A.276/1999. 3 appellate court differed from the view taken by the trial court that the suit is barred under the Essential Commodities Act. It was of the view that since there is violation of the principles of statutory law, the suit is maintainable. The lower appellate court has found that there was no cause of action for the suit and a mere apprehension is insufficient to give a right to the plaintiff to institute the suit. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Hence this Second Appeal. 6. Notice is seen issued on the following questions of law: “1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is premature in view of the admission made in the written statement of defendants 1 and 2 that they are going to detach some ration shops from the purview of plaintiff's licence? 2. Whether defendants 1 and 2 are not estopped from detaching ration shops from the plaintiff when the plaintiff has already invested large amounts to conduct the business on the basis of licence?” S.A.276/1999. 4 7. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the case because even according to the plaintiff his licence is temporary and it is not certain whether he can continue or not. Moreover, the plaintiff had no cause of action at the relevant time. Merely on the basis of an apprehension, he rushed to the court. The lower appellate court has found that no action has been taken by the District Collector against the appellant. The plaintiff rushed to this court with an anticipatory grievance. As rightly pointed out by the lower appellate court such a relief cannot be granted. 8. Leaving open the right of the plaintiff to approach the court, if the plaintiff is aggrieved by any future course of action by the defendants, this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.