IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21288 of 2011(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.BABY SURESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL, MURINGODI, PERAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.KHALID, SRI.T.P.SAJID, SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THALASSERY. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRITTY. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAVOOR. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAVOOR. 6. THOTTUMKARA BALAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.CHANDU, THERU, PERAVOOR P.O., PERAVOOR. 7. REMESHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.VAYALOMBRON KUMARAN, KUNITHALA, PERAVOOR P.O.,PERAVOOR. 8. NADAPURAM RAJEESH, AGED 33 YEARS, HEAD LOAD WORKER, PERAVOOR P.O., PERAVOOR. 9. THOTTUMKARA VINOD, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, THERU, PERAVOOR P.O., PERAVOOR. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R6 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21288/2011 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER CLAUSE 45(8) OF KERALA RATIONING ORDER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE CHALAN DTD. 24/02/2011. P3: COPY OF THE CHALAN DTD. 24/02/2011. P4: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DTD. 4/07/2011 SENT TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRITTY, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAVOOR AND SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAVOOR. P5: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SENT TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRITTY, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAVOOR AND SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAVOOR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21288 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. This writ petition is filed seeking direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to implement Ext.P1 order, through which the authorised dealership licenced to the petitioner is restored, revoking the order of suspension. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, we directed the learned Government Pleader to seek instructions from respondents 1 to 5 regarding the claim of the petitioner with respect to the revival of the licence as well as with respect to the veracity of the accusations made. Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions received from the 1st respondent submitted that, the licence (dealership) of the petitioner which was under suspension stands restored as per Ext.P1. But it is mentioned that there was a writ petition pending before this Court, filed by some of the card holders attached to the shop in question, seeking 2 W.P.(C) No.21288 of 2011 directions not to revoke the suspension of the petitioner with respect to ARD shop in question. However, it is conceded that the said writ petition (W.P.(C) No.17819 of 2011) was disposed of by this Court on 11.7.2011, giving liberty to the petitioners therein to challenge such revocation if any made in appeal. Learned Government Pleader submits that in view of disposal of the said case, the 1st respondent is taking steps to implement Ext.P1 order of restoration of licence. 3. We also heard Sri.C.P.Peethambaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 to 9. It is stated that an appeal has already been filed against Ext.P1 before the District Collector, as evidenced from Ext.R6(d), produced alongwith the counter affidavit. It is also stated that the respondents are approaching the appellate authority seeking stay of implementation of Ext.P1. 4. Considering the factual situation as narrated above, we notice that there is no legal impediment in implementing Ext.P1 order, as on today. However, it is left open to the contesting respondents to seek appropriate interim relief from the appellate authority. The petitioner, having been issued with an order 3 W.P.(C) No.21288 of 2011 revoking the suspension, cannot be prevented from running the ARD shop. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, unless Ext.P1 order is stayed by any competent authority, the same shall be implemented. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the stay petition alongwith the appeal now stands posted before the District Collector on 30th of this Month. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to implement Ext.P1 order, if no stay order is issued by the District Collector on the appeal already filed by respondents 6 to 9 within a period of one month from today. If there is any action of obstruction from the side of respondents 6 to 9 in implementing Ext.P1 order, the respondents 4 and 5 shall afford adequate protection to the 1st respondent and for the petitioner in resuming functioning of the shop in question. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/