IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 14765 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- S.RAJU, S/O.LATE P.K.SREEDHARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, VELIYIL HOUSE, THUMBOLY ARYAD THEKKU VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. C.S.CHITHRAN, CHITHRALAYAM, AASRAMAM WARD, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 2. P.V.ANANDAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, KOMMADY WARD, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 6. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.SANILKUMAR FOR R3 TO R7 ADV. SRI.V.S.ULLASNATHAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.14765/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF ORDER NO.C.S.5. 73/05 DT. 27.4.05 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. EXT.P2. COPY OF ORDER NO.N5/26653/2005 DT. 11.1.06 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. EXT.P3. COPY OF ORDER NO.(CS)A5-2520/06 DT. 12.11.09 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DT. 17.12.09, RENDERED IN WPC NO.34954/09 L. EXT.P5. COPY OF ORDER, G.O.(Rt)No.140/2010/F&CSD DT. 4.5.10 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6. COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT. 15.2.05, TAX RECEIPTS DT. 28.3.05, 20.7.05, 22.3.06, 29.3.08, 3.9.08, 25.3.09 AND 4.11.09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P7. COPY OF RECEIPT NO.78 DT. 7.5.2010 ISSUED FROM ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY IN FAVOUR OF SHRI JOSHY, BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8. COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.T4.9087/10 DT. 7.5.2010 ISSUED FROM ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY TO SHRI JOSHY AND OTHERS. EXT.P9. COPY OF PAGE NO.3 OF SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10. COPY OF IDENTY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11. COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT. 6.3.09 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P12. COPY OF REPLY DT. 1.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ALAPPUZHA, TO THE PETITIONER VIDE NO.G1-9870/2010 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P13. COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE VOTERS' LIST OF WARD NO.11 OF ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a). THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNSELLOR OF KOMMADY WARD NAMED K.J.PRAVEEN DT. 10.5.2010. EXT.R1(b). THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNSELLOR OF KALAPPURA WARD NAMED P.BINU DT. 14.5.2010. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14765 Of 2010 U ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the Government by exercising the powers of revision, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as the licensee of ARD No.80 was set aside by the Commissioner and the 1st respondent was directed to be appointed. 2. The notification inviting application for the appointment of ARD No.80 is dated 24.1.2005. The locality is Ward No.2 of Alappuzha Municipality at a place called Kommady. Only three applicants were there. The petitioner was the successful candidate and the he was granted appointment by the 5th respondent-District Supply Officer as per Exhibit P1 order. This was based on the comparative assessment of the merit of the candidate. An appeal was filed by the 1st respondent before the District Collector under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, which was dismissed as per Exhibit P2. 3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent challenged the same by filing Revision Petition under Clause 45(10) of the Kerala W.P.(C)No.14765/10 -2- Rationing Order before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Exhibit P3 is the order passed by the Commissioner and Exhibit P5 is the order passed by the Government. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings of the Commissioner and the Government suffer from serious infirmity leading to the violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the points raised by the 1st respondent in the Revision Petition was subjected to an enquiry by the Vigilance Officer of the Office of the Civil Supplies Commissioner and his report has been relied upon in the matter for passing Exhibit P3 order. The copy of the report was not furnished to the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Apart from that, the Vigilance Officer has also not issued any notice to the petitioner. It is therefore pointed out that adverse materials collected against the petitioner by the Vigilance Officer have been relied upon without furnishing the details to the petitioner and without allowing an opportunity for the petitioner to file objections to the said report. It is pointed out that the same infirmity is there with regard to the order passed by the Government as per Exhibit P5. W.P.(C)No.14765/10 -3- 5. The order passed by the Commissioner as per Exhibit P3 shows that the Vigilance Officer was deputed on finding that the records available in the relevant files and those which are produced are not sufficient to examine the veracity of the contentions raised by the 1st respondent. The report of the Vigilance Officer is referred to as item (6) in the order Exhibit P3 and the same is dated 13.7.2009. The proceedings show that the hearing was held on 28.4.2009. Therefore, evidently, the report was called for after the final hearing of the Revision Petition was over. Ultimately, the order is passed on 12.11.2009, on the basis of the said report. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that there was no application by the petitioner to furnish a copy of the report, that will not affect the contentions of the petitioner, in the light of the fact that it is well settled that if an adverse material is sought to be relied upon against a party in a proceedings, he is entitled, as a matter of right, to be communicated the contents of the report, whatever it may be. Further, he could not have applied for it as the report was called for after the hearing of the Revision Petition. W.P.(C)No.14765/10 -4- 7. A reading of Exhibit P3 shows that all the conclusions are based on the said report of the Vigilance Officer. Accordingly, the contentions of the 1st respondent have been accepted and after allowing the revision petition, the 1st respondent was directed to be appointed also. 8. Evidently, the copy of the report was not furnished to the petitioner or to the first respondent. Therefore, the same vitiates the entire proceedings. The petitioner was entitled to be furnished a copy of of the report and he should have been given an opportunity to file objections also. Apart from the petitioner, the 1st respondent also should have been furnished a copy of the said report. Therefore, since there is non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, the orders Exhibits P3 and P5 are quashed. 9. There will be a direction to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to rehear the Revision Petition filed by the 1st respondent after notice to the petitioner, the 1st respondent and any other necessary parties. Before a hearing is conducted, copies of the report of the Vigilance Officer mentioned as item No.(6) in the order Exhibit P3 will be furnished to the petitioner W.P.(C)No.14765/10 -5- as well as the first respondent. They will be given sufficient opportunity to file objections in the matter. The Revision Petition will be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 10. The Writ Petition is allowed of as above. It is made clear that I have not considered anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn