IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2215 of 2010(S) PETITIONER: SMT. K.B. RATNAVALLI, W/O.(LATE)VIJAYAN, VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH, NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680566. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: 1. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAURAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. SMT. USHA SUBRAHMANYAM, TEMPORARY LICENSEE, WHOLESALE DEPT NO.W, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. SRI. V.KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR ZAM ZAM TRADING CORPORATION, KOLAZHI, THRISSUR. 8. CIZHO CHANDRAN, REGISTERED OWNER (KL8-H-7711 LORRY) THAIKOOT HOUSE, KIZHAKUMPATTU KARA, EAST FORT, THRISSUR-5. 9. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN FOR R6 ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R1-R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN, Ag. C.J. & THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2215 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- DATED THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. CJ. This writ petition, challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Civil Supplies Commissioner, is filed as a Public Interest Litigation, possibly because the petitioner is only a third party to the proceeding. By Ext.P3 order, penalty has been imposed on the 6th respondent and directed to restore the licence against which the 6th respondent has filed a revision before the Government and the same is pending. The complaint of the petitioner is that the goods confiscated ought not have been returned to the 6th respondent. Her case is that the goods were taken for black marketing. She seeks to quash Ext.P3. 2. We heard both the sides. According to the petitioner, she has filed a revision as Ext.P6 before the Government. We are not told as to whether the same is received by the Government. In such circumstances, we direct the Government to hear the petitioner also before final orders are passed on the revision filed by the 6th respondent. This may be done as WP(C) 2215/2010 :2: expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition be produced before the Government for information and compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Knc/-