IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14642 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.AFSAL S/O.KOYAN, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALOMKOTTIL VEEDU, WEST VENGOLA, P.O.PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.X.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. T.Y.KURIAKO, THANNIKKOTTIL HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN FOR R4 SRI.PRAMOD KOCHUTHOMMEN.E. FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 16638 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) Nos. 14642 & 16638 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The issues raised in these two writ petitions are common and therefore, they have been heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. I have referred to the facts in W.P.(C) No. 14642 of 2009 in the first instance. 3. Ext.P1 notification was issued inviting application for appointment to an Authorized Retail Dealer for conducting A.R.D.No.55 in Ward No.I in Aikkaranadu Panhayat. The petitioner and the fourth respondent applied. Both of them are not residents of Aikkaranadu Panchayat. By Ext.P2, the petitioner was selected and he was appointed as the licensee. 4. The fourth respondent filed an appeal against Ext.P2. The 2nd respondent District Collector found that the petitioner was not a resident of Aikkaranadu Panchayat and he was, therefore, not eligible to be appointed as the licensee. In the circumstances, the District Collector by Ext.P3 order directed to issue fresh notification. W.P.(C) No. 14642/2009 & con. case 2 5. The fourth respondent did not challenge Ext.P3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 in a revision before the Commissioner. By Ext.P4 the petitioner's revision was dismissed. Both the petitioner and the fourth respondent challenged Ext.P4 in a revision before the Government. By Ext.P8 order the Government confirmed the order passed by the District Collector as also by the Commissioner. These have been challenged in these writ petitions. 6. The fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No. 14642 of 2009 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16638 of 2009. 7. Heard Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14642 of 209 and Sri.Shaji Thankappan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16638 of 2009 and Sri. P.Narayanan, learned Government Pleader. 8. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14642 of 2009, who was selected in the first instance challenges the third proviso to clause 45(1) of the Rationing Order. A counter affidavit has been filed. It is pointed out that the Government is entitled to prescribe eligibility conditions. Residence in the locality within the same panchayat can be stipulated as a condition and such stipulation is clearly justified. 9. Reference is made to judgment of a Bench of this Court in Jose W.P.(C) No. 14642/2009 & con. case 3 V. Nesamony (1994(1) KLT 369) wherein normally residence is construed as a normal resident in the panchayat/municipality/corporation area where the ration shop is sanctioned by the authority. 10. Going by the said dictum, the finding of the District Collector that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14642 of 2009 is not eligible, is not liable to be interfered with. He has no case that he was a resident of the Aikkaranad Panchayat at the time of Ext.P1 notification. 11. I find no ground to interfere with the third proviso to clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order. What is involved is the public distribution system of rationed article and the Government has power to prescribe eligibility conditions. It is not violative any constitutional provisions or any other provisions of the present Statute. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16638 of 2009 is concerned, he filed an appeal against the order by which the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14642 of 2009 was selected. His appeal was allowed and fresh notification was directed to be issued. He accepted the said order. He did not challenge the order passed by the District Collector. The Commissioner passed an order confirming the order passed by the District Collector in a revision filed by the selectee. Obviously, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16638/2009 had accepted the order of the District Collector which contemplates fresh notification. W.P.(C) No. 14642/2009 & con. case 4 12. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders in both the writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 14642 of 2009 shall be permitted to continue as temporary licensee, until a new licensee is selected,. Subject to the undertaking that if the petitioner is not selected, pursuant to a fresh selection process, and any other person is selected as the licensee of A.R.D.No.55 in Aikkaranadu Village, he shall forth with surrender his permission on intimation from the appropriate forum. V.GIRI, JUDGE. mn.