IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 12358 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- B.LATHIKUMARI, GEETHA BHAVANAM, IVARKALA WEST NORTH, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O., PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 3. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM. 5. MRS.K.K.RAJI, ADARSHA, PALLIMURI, CHOORANADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI FOR R1 TO R4 & R6 SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R5 SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 13038 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.12358/09 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.15.2.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF AUTHORISATION DT.15.2.07. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.21.5.07. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.1.3.08. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DT.9.6.08. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.6.08 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.22.8.08. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.3.4.09. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.12358/09-L &13038/09-Y ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The orders passed by the statutory authorities confirming the order passed by the Government disposing of the revision petitions under the Kerala Rationing Order are under challenge herein. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions were applicants for appointment as wholesale dealer, but became unsuccessful. 2. The notification in question is for appointment of an Authorised Wholesale Dealer for Depot No.II in Kunnathoor Taluk. The 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.13038/09 is the successful candidate. For convenience, the Exhibits produced in W.P.(C)No.13038/09 are referred to herein. Exhibit P1 is the order passed by the District Collector, wherein the 6th respondent was appointed, against which an appeal was filed and wherein the matter was remanded by the 2nd respondent and again the District Collector by Exhibit P2 after reconsideration appointed the 6th respondent. She was found as the better claimant. This was challenged before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the appeal was disposed of by Exhibit P4 order setting aside the W.P.(C)Nos.12358/09-L & 13038/09-Y -2- order passed by the District Collector. The Commissioner was of the view that none of the candidates are qualified and accordingly directed the District Collector to issue a fresh notification and select a suitable person in accordance with the lawful procedure prescribed. The same was challenged before the Government by the 6th respondent by filing Exhibit P5 revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 6th respondent had produced an experience certificate issued by the Taluk Supply Officer, whereas she was not having any such experience at all and that was the reason why the Commissioner interfered with the orders passed by the District Collector. It is pointed out that the Government, while allowing the revision petition, simply brushed aside the said finding, that too without reference to the real aspects. It is therefore pointed out that relevant evidence was not considered by the Government and the conclusions have been arrived at on mere W.P.(C)Nos.12358/09-L & 13038/09-Y -3- surmises. 5. A reading of various orders shows the following: 6. In Exhibit P1, after referring to the various applications and the respective qualifications, the District Collector found that except the 6th respondent, all others are not qualified. As far as the 6th respondent is concerned, it was found that she had produced the required solvency and the building offered also is acceptable. Of course, it was observed that she is having two months' experience as a sales girl in a wholesale depot. After remand, the order Exhibit P2 was passed by the District Collector. Therein also she was selected. The Commissioner was mainly of the view that there were some objections with regard to the experience certificate and the matter was under enquiry and therefore if the 6th respondent is also excluded no other person will be there as qualified. 7. The main reason for setting aside the order and interfering with the above view taken by the Commissioner is that the experience as such was not a qualification prescribed in the notification issued by the District Supply Officer. Therefore, W.P.(C)Nos.12358/09-L & 13038/09-Y -4- the Government was of the view that she is not disqualified so long as she has complied with all other formalities as per the notification and unlike other applicants she is possessing superior claim over the other applicants. 8. What is involved is only the comparison of the qualifications as well as the satisfaction of the requirements, which are necessary to conduct a wholesale depot, like suitable building, solvency, etc.. Essentially, this is a matter of evaluating the qualifications and disqualifications. If the experience qualification was not required as per the notification, the only question is whether she could have been disqualified based on the veracity of the certificate produced. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the said certificate has not been cancelled at any point of time. It is also pointed out that the 6th respondent was conducting the AWD through out. 9. The only question is whether the view taken by the Government is therefore a reasonable one based on the materials available. Significantly, it was found that the other candidates could not produce evidence to counter what is on record against W.P.(C)Nos.12358/09-L & 13038/09-Y -5- them. The Government was also of the view that she is having superior qualification based on the parameters prescribed. The experience qualification was not one prescribed by the notification also. Therefore, the Government has really considered the relevant aspects and the conclusion is not based on any irrelevant material as such. No legal questions are also involved, and essentially the findings were on questions of facts. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Government. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn