IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 30285 of 2010(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- C.G.VIJAYAKUMAR, PUTHUVARATHU VEEDU, SOORANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 001. 4. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM- 691 001. 5. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM- 691 001. 6. SHAJAHAN, PAMPADASHI THEKKETHIL, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA VADAKKU, KAKANNU P.O., SOORANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 690 561. 7. R.VISWANATHAN NAIR, PURANCHUTTIL VEEDU, PANAKADAVU P.O., SOORANADU, KOLLAM– 690 561. 8. M.SANKARA KURUP, AMBIKA BHAVANAM, ANAYADI P.O., SOORANADU, KOLLAM– 690 561. 9. MRS.PRASANNAKUMARI AMMA, THIRUVONAM, PADINJARE KIZHAKKE, SOORANADU, KOLLAM– 690 561. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 30285/2010(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NITIFICATION NO.CS6-3852/2004 DATED 21/12/2004. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/08/2005 APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS AUTHORIZED RETAIL DISTRIBUTOR. P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.CS2-271/05 DATED 03/10/2005 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER DATED 06/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE SOORANAD NORTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER NO.S2/5129/2010 DATED 27/09/2010. P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/01/2010. P7: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.218/2010/F&CS DATED 03/07/2010. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS-2/271/2005 DATED 09/09/2010 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE CARD HOLDERS IN ARD NO.58. P10: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.CS 6-3852/2004 DATED 15/11/2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.30285 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the respondents, inviting applications for appointment of ARD for shop No.58 of Ward No.IX of Sooranadu North Panchayat, to be located at a place called 'Padinjatte Kizhakku Iyyanam'. Among others, the petitioner also responded to the notification. By Ext.P2 order, he was appointed by the 4th respondent. Appeals were filed against his appointment and the District Collector issued order dated 14.1.2006, setting aside Ext.P2 order of appointment. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. That appeal was dismissed by Ext.P6 order. Revision filed to the 1st respondent was also rejected by Ext.P7. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, this writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner contends that, the main reason for setting aside his appointment was that, a revenue recovery proceedings 2 W.P.(C) No.30285 of 2010 was pending against him, for realising ` 474/-. It is stated that, even if it was true, at the relevant time, ` 600/- was deposited by him as security for the same shop, was available with the government and therefore, the revenue recovery proceedings should not have been relied on against the petitioner. Even if this explanation of the petitioner is accepted, still the impugned order shows that, all the authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner was not a resident of the area, in relation to which the shop was established, and he was appointed in pursuance to Ext.P1 notification. Apart from that, all the authority have also found that the shop identified by the petitioner was also outside the area of the shop. No document has been produced by the petitioner to contradict these factual findings. It is true that, the petitioner is relied on Ext.P5, issued by the Sooranadu North Grama Panchayat, which suggests that as per the records of the Panchayat, there is no place or address with a name 'Iyyanam'. However, I am not persuaded to be guided by Ext.P5, for the reason that, Ext.P1 notification itself specify the name of the 3 W.P.(C) No.30285 of 2010 place as 'Padinjatte Kizhakku Iyyanam' and the petitioner has made his application in pursuance to Ext.P1 and his appointment also was in pursuance to Ext.P1. Therefore, for the purpose of Ext.P1, a place with the name as 'Padinjatte Kizhakku Iyyanam', should be presumed to be in existence. If that be so, since it has been found that the petitioner is not a resident of the locality and that the shop located by the petitioner was outside the area, the impugned proceedings will have to be upheld. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ami/