IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 6874 of 2006(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.A.THANKAMMA, AWD NO.1, SREENARAYANAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 2. CISHO CHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, THYKKOOT HOUSE, KIZHAKKAM PATTUKARA, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.6706/08) 3. JOHN.P.J., S/O.P.V.JOSE, PELLISSERY HOUSE, KODUNGALLUR. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.7096/08) 4. P.K.MUKUNDAN, S/P.KUNJAN, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, PULLATTU BUILDING, CHAMAKKALA ROAD, CHENDRAPINNI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.14878/06) BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R1 SRI.C.A.MAJEED FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR ADDL.R3 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR ADDL.R3 SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM FOR ADDL.R SMT.V.T.LITHA FOR ADDL.R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, A/W. W.P(C).No.14260/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 6874/06. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.11.10.03 OF THE DIST. COLLECTOR. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER. P3. COPY OF THE LIST OF RETAIL AUTHORITIES OF THE WHOLESALE DEALER AWD1. P4. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.24.2.06. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT FROM NATTIKA FIRKA CO-OP. RURAL BANK. (B) COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.27.3.06. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.6874/2006 & 14260/2008 ================== Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T W.P(C).No.14260/2008: This writ petition is filed by a person who claims to have approached the 3rd respondent with an application for selection as AWD pursuant to Ext.P1 notification inviting applications, dated 24.2.2006. The last date for submission of application was 27.3.2006. According to the petitioner, on 26.3.2006, he approached the 3rd respondent with an application and connected documents which were refused to be accepted by the 3rd respondent on the ground that there is a stay order issued by this Court in a writ petition. Later on, the petitioner came to understand that the 3rd respondent had in fact accepted other applications and he deliberately did not accept the application filed by the petitioner to avoid the petitioner entering the fray as an applicant pursuant to Ext.P1 notification to help the other applicants. The petitioner would further contend that in view of several malpractices committed by the person who was occupying the office of the 3rd respondent at the relevant time, he w.p.c.6874/06 & cc. 2 was later suspended from service and proceeded against. With the help of these averments the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to accept Ext.P2 application of the petitioner submitted in terms of Ext.P1 notification and to process the same by holding that it is proper and submitted within time. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 not to further continue with Ext.P1 proceedings without processing Ext.P2 application of the petitioner in the interest of justice. iii) Issue an appropriate writ, or direction commanding the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 in accordance with law and finalize the same within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. iv) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to conduct an independent enquiry by keeping away the third respondent from the process as to the allegations against the said officer in the interest of justice.” 2. The prayers of the petitioner are stoutly opposed by the learned Government Pleader as also the counsel for additional respondents 7 and 8. The learned Government Pleader submits that the whole story put forward by the petitioner is a cock and bull story. He points out that on 26.3.2006, the date on which the petitioner claims to have approached the 3rd respondent with an application and connected documents was a Sunday and therefore, the case of the petitioner is clearly unbelievable. The w.p.c.6874/06 & cc. 3 Government Pleader would also submit that the petitioner could have submitted the application on 27.3.2006, which also the petitioner has not done. According to the Government Pleader, this Court had directed the petitioner to be ready with all necessary documents for consideration of his application required to be produced by him as on the last date of the submitting applications. However, even now the petitioner does not have any document other than the application itself. The counsel for respondents 7 and 8 would point out that they have submitted applications in time which were received and acknowledgment issued to them. The additional 7th respondent has produced Ext.R7(b) receipt issued by the office of the District Supply Officer, Thrissur, evidencing submission of the application by the additional 7th respondent on 27.3.2006 at 12.30 p.m. Likewise, the additional 8th respondent would also submit that he has also submitted application in time, which was also received and therefore, the petitioner's contention that he approached the 3rd respondent on 26.3.2006 is thoroughly unbelievable. The contention of the learned Government Pleader and additional respondents 7 and 8 is that the petitioner is only trying to w.p.c.6874/06 & cc. 4 support the petitioner in W.P(C).No. 6874/2006, who is another AWD who wants to prevent another AWD from coming up in the area. 3. In answer to the above contentions, the petitioner would submit that all what the petitioner need submit pursuant to Ext.P1 notification is the application and it is not mandatory that the applicant should produce documents referred to in Ext.P1. He relies on the decision of this Court in Varkey v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT 567) which, according to him, lays done the proposition that required documents need be produced only at the time of interview. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The only question to be considered is as to whether the petitioner had in fact approached the 4th respondent with an application which was refused to be accepted on the ground that there was a stay by this Court. It is true that in W.P(C).No. 6874/2006 this Court had issued a stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notification inviting applications. It is also true that that the interim stay was vacated on 7.8.2007. The petitioner has not produced any concrete document to prove that w.p.c.6874/06 & cc. 5 the petitioner had actually approached the 3rd respondent with an application on 26.3.2006. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that 26.3.2006 is a Sunday. The petitioner also did not make any attempt to file the application on the last day viz., 27.3.2006, which is a Monday. In view of the dispute raised, I had directed the petitioner to be ready with all necessary documents for consideration of his application required to be produced by him as on the last date of the application on 18.6.2008, by order dated 13.6.2008. The petitioner does not have any document which he claims to have been in possession on 26.3.2006. His only contention is that in view of the decision in Varkey's case (supra), no other documents were necessary, but only the filled up application. But in Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner on 30.4.2008, he specifically states that he went to the office of the 3rd respondent on 26.3.2006 with an application and connected documents. The petitioner is unable to explain as to what those connected documents were. But at the same time, he frankly admits that he does not have any other documents other than the application. The additional 8th respondent would point out that the shop building offered by the w.p.c.6874/06 & cc. 6 petitioner in his application was V/91B owned by C.T.Jose and the very same building was offered by the petitioner in W.P(C).No. 6874/2006 also which would support his case that the petitioner's attempt is only to support the petitioner in W.P(C). No.6874/2006. In Ext.P2 application stated to have been submitted by the petitioner it is specifically stated that the building proposed by him is V/91B owned by C.T.Jose and that the consent of the owner is enclosed. The petitioner is unable to produce that consent letter which he claims to have enclosed along with Ext.P2 application. In view of the above circumstances I am unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner that he approached the 3rd respondent with a valid application and it was refused to be accepted on 26.3.2006. That being so, the only conclusion possible is that the petitioner did not submit a valid application before the last date fixed as per Ext.P1 notification. Therefore, I do not find any merit in W.P(C).No. 14260/2008 and accordingly, the same dismissed. W.P(C).No.6874/2006: 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is an Authorized w.p.c.6874/06 & cc. 7 Wholesale Dealer of ration articles. She is challenging Ext.P4 notification issued by the District Collector, Thrissur, inviting applications for appointment as AWD in Kodungallur Taluk. The contention raised is that there are already two AWDs in Kodungallur area and if a new AWD is appointed, it would adversely affect the business of the already existing AWDs and there is no necessity to appoint a new AWD. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating the reasons as to why a new AWD was decided to be started in Kodungallur Taluk. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Whether a new AWD should be started in an area is a decision which the Government has to take after taking into account various factors involved in such a decision. Such policy decision cannot be interfered with by this Curt except on the ground of malafides, which the petitioner has to plead and prove which the petitioner has not done. I am not satisfied that in taking such a decision, the Government or the District Collector was actuated by mala fides. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the 1st respondent in the matter w.p.c.6874/06 & cc. 8 and therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge