IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28717 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHRI P. GEORGE JOSEPH, LICENSEE, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., PADICKAL HOUSE, EDAYARUNMULA, KOIPURAM PANCHAYATH, THIRUVALLA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THOMAS K. IYPE S/O. K.M IYPE MIDHUN VILLA,PULLAD PO, BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, SOUTHERN ZONE, KOLLAM. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM. 6. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 28717 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an authorised kerosene wholesale dealer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at Kumbanad in Thiruvalla Taluk. His kerosene wholesale out let was inspected by the Deputy Controller of Rationing on 7.10.2009. Though on stock verification the fourth respondent reported that there was no shortage of stock, he made an endorsement in the visit book to the effect that the licencee is not in station and has gone to United States of America. This writ petition is filed apprehending that on the basis of the said endorsement, the petitioner’s licence will be suspended. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to quash the action taken pursuant to Ext.P6 inspection report. 2. Sri. T.S.Radhakrishna Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the licencee had gone abroad along with his wife to provide medical care to her. He submits that the petitioner will be back shortly. In such circumstances, if the petitioner’s licence is cancelled for the reason that the licencee was W.P.(C) No. 28717/09 2 absent at the time of inspection, he will be put to serious prejudice, it is submitted. In my opinion, the apprehension entertained by the petitioner is untenable. All that is stated in Ext.P6 is that the licencee is not in station and has gone abroad. If, on that score, the respondents initiate action against the petitioner, the petitioner can question the same in other appropriate proceedings. As matters now stand, no order has been passed by the respondents suspending the petitioner’s licence. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that no action has been taken against the petitioner till date. In such circumstances, I am persuaded to hold that this writ petition is premature. It is accordingly dismissed, reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge the action, if any, taken by the respondents against him based on Ext.P6 or any other material, in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 28717/09 3