IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13755 of 2007(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.SEEMA, W/O.JAYAKUMAR, KOCHEN NIKARTHIL, PATTANAKADU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHERTHALA. 6. SMT.YAMUNA MOHANAN, ASWATHY NIVAS, NEELIMANGALAM, PATTANAKADU, CHERTHALA TALUK. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN, R6 BY ADV. MR.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13755/2007-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. CS.253/06 DTD. 01/01/06 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPORT NO. B2-776/06 DTD. 29/03/06 ISSUED BY THE R.5. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CS.3.253/06 DTD. 31/05/06 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF ARD NO.127/CHERTHALA VIDE NO.CS5.253/06 DTD. 31/05/06 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CS.5.253/06 DTD. 29/08/06 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DT. 31/08/06. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/01/06 VIDE NO. (CS) A8-29836/06 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DT. 14/12/06. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/04/07 VIDE NO. GO.NO.150/07/FCSD ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/09/06 VIDE NO. B2/776/06(1) ISSUED BY THE R.5. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 20/11/06 VIDE NO. B2, C, D.776/06 ISSUED BY THE R.5. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.3.07 VIDE NO.CS.10/919/07 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 08/12/06 IN W.P.(C).NO.32680/06 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22/08/07 IN W.P.(C).NO.25608/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.S.9.939/07 DTD. 12/06/07 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.13755 of 2007 ====================================== Dated this the 6th day of February 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who was an applicant for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor under the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order 1966, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the selection and appointment of the sixth respondent as Authorised Retail Distributor of rationed articles in Vayalar Grama Panchayat. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. By Ext.P1 notification dated 1.1.2006, the District Supply Officer, Alappuzha invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor to run ARD No.127 in Ward No.10 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat. The last date stipulated in Ext.P1 for submission of applications was 31.1.2006. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner, the sixth respondent and two others applied. The applications were enquired into by the Taluk Supply Officer, Cherthala who submitted Ext.P2 report dated 29.3.2006. Ext.P2 discloses that the petitioner had offered a building situated in Ward No.10 which had electricity connection while the sixth respondent had offered a building situated in Ward No.11 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat. Ext.P2 also discloses that the sixth respondent had not furnished the solvency certificate along with the application form, that it was produced only on 31.1.2006 at the time of scrutiny and that the experience certificate W.P.(C)No.13755/07 2 produced by her cannot be relied on as her name does not figure in the register of Salesman employed in ARD No.135 where the sixth respondent claimed she had previously worked as Salesman. The District Supply Officer, Alappzuha however issued Ext.P3 proceedings dated 31.5.2006 appointing the sixth respondent as Authorised Retail Distributor to run ARD No.127 in Ward No.10 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat. Ext.P4, the formal order of appointment was also simultaneously issued on 31.5.2006. 3. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector. The District Collector heard the petitioner and the sixth respondent and by Ext.P5 order passed on 29.8.2006 rejected the appeal. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P6 revision petition dated 31.8.2006 before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. After the petitioner filed Ext.P6 revision petition, the Taluk Supply Officer, Cherthala issued Ext.P10 proceedings dated 8.9.2006 directing the Rationing Inspector, Cherthala South to implement Exts.P3 and P4. Ext.P6 revision petition was thereafter heard on 9.11.2006 and 10.11.2006 and by Ext.P7 order passed on 17.11.2006, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies rejected the revision petition. The petitioner thereupon moved the Government under Clause-71 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 by filing Ext.P8 revision petition dated 14.12.2006. After W.P.(C)No.13755/07 3 Ext.P7 order was passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, the Taluk Supply Officer, Cherthala inspected ARD No.127 run by the sixth respondent, noticed certain irregularities and thereupon issued Ext.P11 notice dated 20.11.2006 calling upon her to show cause why action under Clause-45(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 should not be taken against her. This aspect was also brought to the notice of the Government by the petitioner in Ext.P8 revision petition. Thereafter the authorisation issued to the sixth respondent to run ARD No.127 was suspended by Ext.P12 order dated 1.3.2007 passed by the District Supply Officer, Alappuzha. When Ext.P8 revision petition was heard on 23.3.2007, the petitioner brought this fact also to the notice of the Officer who heard the revision petition. By Ext.P9 order passed on 3.4.2007, the Government rejected the revision petition holding that the petitioner who is admittedly not a resident of Vayalar Grama Panchayat (the petitioner is a resident of Pattanakkadu Grama Panchayat) was not eligible to apply. In this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P4, P5, P7, P9 and P10 orders and prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to appoint her as Authorised Retail Distributor to run ARD No.127. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fourth W.P.(C)No.13755/07 4 respondent wherein, relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jose v Nesamony (1994(1) KLT 369), the respondents contend that as the petitioner is admittedly not a resident of Vayalar Grama Panchayat, she is ineligible to apply for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor to run ARD No.127 in Vayalar Grama Panchayat. 5. I have heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.K.Ravikrishnan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the sixth respondent was not eligible to apply and therefore her appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor to run ARD No.127 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sixth respondent had admittedly not furnished the Solvency Certificate along with her application, that it was produced only belatedly at the time of scrutiny on 31.1.2006 and that on the terms of Ext.P1 notification, the sixth respondent's application was liable to be rejected. The learned counsel further submitted that the sixth respondent does not admittedly have experience as Salesman as claimed by her for the reason that her name does not appear in the Register of Salesman employed in ARD No.135 as observed by W.P.(C)No.13755/07 5 the Taluk Supply Officer, Cherthala in Ext.P2 report. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the building offered by the sixth respondent is admittedly situated in Ward No.11 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat and therefore on that ground also her appointment is illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in these circumstances, the order appointing the sixth respondent as Authorised Retail Distributor to run ARD No.127 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat and the appellate and revisional orders upholding it are liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents contend that as the petitioner was not eligible to apply, she cannot challenge the order appointing the sixth respondent as Authorised Retail Distributor. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a resident of Vayalar Grama Panchayat. It is also conceded that she is a permanent resident of Pattanakkad Grama Panchayat. Ext.P1 discloses that applications were invited from eligible persons for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor to run ARD No.127 at Neelimangalam in Ward No.10 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat. The third proviso to Clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 reads as follows:- W.P.(C)No.13755/07 6 “Provided also that a person who is a full time employee in any establishment or who is not normally resident in the locality shall not be eligible to hold an autorisation to run the retail ration depot under this order” 7. A Division Bench of this Court has in Jose v Nesamony (supra) interpreting the said proviso held that as the term `locality' has not been defined in the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, it has to be understood with reference to the locality specified in the notification inviting applications. In Jose v Nesamony (supra) the notification was issued for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor in Vellarada Panchayat. It was held that the word `locality' has therefore to be understood as the local limits of Vellarada Grama Panchayat. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench of this Court held that Sri.Nesamoni who challenged the appointment of Sri.Jose as Authorised Retail Distributor was ineligible to apply. 8. The issue involved in the case on hand is identical to the issue decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Jose v Nesamony (supra). By Ext.P1, the District Supply Officer, Alappuzha invited applications for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor in Ward No.10 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat. The term 'locality' occuring in the third proviso to clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order therefore has to be understood as the W.P.(C)No.13755/07 7 local limits of Vayalar Grama Panchayat, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Jose v Nesamony (supra). As the petitioner is admittedly a resident of Pattanakkadu Grama Panchayat, she cannot be said to be a resident of the locality. She was therefore ineligible to apply pursuant to Ext.P1. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the petitioner is ineligible to apply, the sixth respondent's appointment cannot be sustained for the reason that the building offered by her is situated in Ward No.11 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat while Ext.P1 notification was in relation to ARD No.127 in Ward No.10 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat. The petitioner has no case that the building offered by the sixth respondent is not situated in Neelimangalam in Vayalar Grama Panchayat. Her case is that the building is not situated in Ward No.10. As the sixth respondent has offered a building situated in Neelimangalam, though in Ward No.11 of Vayalar Grama Panchayat, I find no force in the said contention. Further the materials on record disclose that the building offered by the sixth respondent is situate across the road from the building where ARD No.127 was formerly located. The challenge to the appointment of the sixth respondent cannot therefore be sustained on the merits as well. In the view that I have taken, I hold that there is no merit in W.P.(C)No.13755/07 8 the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/