IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26713 of 2010(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.JEROME, S/O.MUTHAYYAN, PRIYADARSHINI BHAVAN, VALIYATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT:SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, O/O.THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES O/O.THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.26713/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2007 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2008 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/07/2009 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/08/2010 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 19/07/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.26713 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as ARD No.233 under the 5th respondent. On the basis of the finding that he had committed certain irregularities, the 5th respondent conducted an enquiry and the licence of the petitioner was cancelled by Ext.P1 order. Petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector and that appeal was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 8.8.2008. Against that order, petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. That revision was also rejected by Ext.P3 order. Thereafter, petitioner filed a further revision before the Government. That was rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that there is no provision for filing such a revision. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings. 2. As far as Ext.P4 order passed by the Government is concerned, the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order do not contain any further revision before the Government against Ext.P3 order. Therefore, Ext.P4 W.P (C) No.26713 of 2010 2 order cannot be faulted on any ground. 3. However, as far as Ext.P3 order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, admittedly the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner. In that sense, Ext.P3 order is unsustainable. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P4 and directing that the Commissioner shall pass fresh orders on the revision filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order of the District Collector with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible . Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, for compliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge