IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2193 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.PADMAKUMAR,KATTAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU KOTTOOR,KUTTICHAL (PO)ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. SMT.N.SREEKALA S.K.SADANAM,KOTTOOR, KOTTOOR PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY COLLECOTR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 2193 OF 2008 J ===================== Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition concerns to the appointment of an ARD notified by Ext.P1. Petitioner was one of the candidates who lost in the selection process and Ext.P2 is the order that was issued by the District Supply Officer where it has been found that the petitioner is not a resident of the area notified. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Collector was also unsuccessful. However, in the revision that was filed, petitioner succeeded. Dealing with the residence qualification of the petitioner, Revisional authority held that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. It is on that basis relief was granted. 2. However, the aggrieved persons carried the matter in second revision before the Government and the Government in Ext.P5 set aside Ext.P4 order of the First Revisional Authority. In WPC 2193/08 :2 : Ext.P5, Government have come to a finding that the petitioner is not “normally a resident of the locality” notified in Ext.P1. It is on that basis, appointment of the 1st respondent has been upheld. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a resident of the area notified and therefore he is eligible to be appointed. I am not in a position to accept his contention. In Ext.P2 order of the District Supply Officer, it has been found that the petitioner is not a resident of the area notified. This finding of the District Supply Officer has been confirmed in appeal by the District Collector in Ext.P3. However, concurrent findings thus arrived at, was reversed by the First Revisional Authority only giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner. In a matter like this, extension of the theory of benefit of doubt sounds strange and is quite uncommon. Be that as it may, it is seen from Ext.P5 order of the Government, where the issue of residence of the petitioner has been dealt with in the following terms: The main issue to be settled and decided by the Govt. is to ascertain unambiguously the residentiality of Sri.Padmakumar. Accordingly, a detailed local enquiry was conducted through the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the report received from the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram read as eight paper above, it is revealed that Sri.Padmakumar WPC 2193/08 :3 : is not “normally a resident of the locality”, the prime and foremost requirement stipulated in Kerala Rationing Order. Hence Sri.Padmakumar loses an important ground to back up his eligibility for being appointed as licensee, and his application is liable to be rejected. Thus Government having conducted an independent enquiry through the Collector and have acted upon a report to the effect that petitioner was not a resident of the locality concerned. There is nothing on record to indicate that the findings rendered by the Supply Officer and confirmed by the District Collector and again confirmed by the Government is perverse for any reason. If that be so, the writ petition merits only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp