IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011/11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 1550 of 2011(P) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJIT GEORGE,S/O.K.C.GEORGE,VATTAKUNNEL KIZHAKKEL,H.NO.366,WARD NO.1V,SOURYANELLI.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685001. 4. FRANCIS VADAKKEL,VADAKKEL HOUSE, BYSON VALLEY,UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685554. ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1550 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.CS-B2-2479/03 DTD.9.9.05 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.7.2009 IN WPC 27114/08 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.1.2010 IN WRIT APPEAL 1683/09. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.CS.B2-2479/03 DATED 22.10.10. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR BEARING NO. VC NO.8/2010 DATED 20.4.2010. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.(CS) A5-25799/10 DATED 1.12.10. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT DATED 8.12.10. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.(CS) A5/2579/10 DATED 20.12.10. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.10 IN WPC 34445/10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge. ul/- ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1550 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 2. The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the appointment of AWD No.12 at Chinnackanal in Idukki District. In 2005 applications were invited for appointment of AWD No.12 and the petitioner and 4th respondent were applicants. Petitioner's application was rejected and the 4th respondent was appointed. Against the said order an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the 2nd respondent. The revision filed before the Government was also rejected. These orders were challenged before this court in WPC 27114/2008 and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment with the following directions; W.P.(C) No. 1550 OF 2011 :2 : “In view of my above findings, the writ petition is allowed quashing Exts.P3, P6 and P8. The District Collector is directed to consider the applications including that of the petitioner afresh on merits, in accordance with law and pass fresh orders regarding the selection of the AWD pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The same shall be done after hearing all eligible applicants including the petitioner and the 5th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that the District Collector shall specifically address himself to all the contentions referred to above and enter specific findings in respect of each of the same while passing fresh orders.” W.P.(C) No. 1550 OF 2011 :3 : 3. Against the said judgment the 4th respondent filed W.A.1683/09, which was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment. Accordingly the matter was reconsidered by the 3rd respondent and Ext.P4 order was passed and the operative portion of which reads as under. “Hence under Section 51(8) of Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, I reject the application of Rejit George. Further as Francies Vadakkel was not a resident of Bisonvalley Panchayat, at the time of submitting application hence ineligible to get the licence. Hence I hereby cancel his appointment as authorized dealer of AWD.12 at Chinnakkanal in Udumbanchola Taluk. Fresh notification to be called for as per rules.” 4. This order was challenged by the 4th respondent by filing Ext.P6 appeal before the 2nd respondent and in the W.P.(C) No. 1550 OF 2011 :4 : appeal notice was issued to the parties and petitioner states that he received the notice on 7.12.2010, posting the appeal to 9.12.2010. Petitioner engaged a counsel who made Ext.P7 requesting for an adjournment. However rejecting the said request, Ext.P8 order was passed by the Appellate Authority on 20.12.2010, cancelling Ext.P4 and directing reconsideration of the matter by the District Collector. It is challenging Ext.P8, the writ petition was filed. 5. In the writ petition, petitioner has made a specific averment that he has not perused the revisional remedy available before 1st respondent for the reason that the impugned order was passed by Secretary to Government who was also holding then the additional charge of the post of the 2nd respondent. Considering the allegations particularly with regard to the denial of opportunity to the petitioner, the writ petition was W.P.(C) No. 1550 OF 2011 :5 : admitted and further proceedings were also stayed. 6. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent who was not satisfied with Ext.P8, filed a revision before the Government, a copy of which is marked as Ext.R4(a). During the pendency of the writ petition, due to the change of the incumbent in the post, another person has taken charge as Secretary to Government and following the said development, the petitioner also has filed a revision, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P10. Both these revisions are pending and it is at that stage the writ petition is coming up for hearing. 7. The fact that at the time when the writ petition was filed the then Secretary to Government was holding additional charge of and the 2nd respondent has been admitted by the 2nd respondent in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed. W.P.(C) No. 1550 OF 2011 :6 : 8. Now, that there is a change in the incumbent holding the post of Secretary to the first respondent and as Ext.R4(a) and Ext.P10 revisions filed by both sides are pending it is unnecessary for this court to resolve the controversy on merits. Taking note of the above the writ petition will stand disposed of directing the first respondent to issue notice to both the parties and consider Ext.R4(a) and Ext.P10 and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that in the meanwhile the order of stay of Ext.P8 dated 17.1.11 will remain in force. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge