IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22881 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.N.MUSAVU RAWTHAR,VADAKKOTHIL HOUSE, KARINILAM.P.O,KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. V.M.SALEEM,S/O.V.N.MUSAVU RAWTHAR, VADAKKOTHIL HOUSE, KARINILAM.P.O,KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.NISHIL.P.S. SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,KOTTAYAM. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22881/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT 1st petitioner is the Authorized Retail Distributor of A.R.D.No.111 of Kanjirappally Taluk, Kottayam District and the 2nd petitioner is his son and the Full Time Salesman therein. Government had through Civil Supplies Corporation issued food grains for free distribution to the families hit by Chicken Gunia, Dengu Fever and viral fever in July 2007. Petitioners also received certain quantity of food grains for distribution and according to the petitioners, the food grains remaining after distribution was tendered before the Taluk Supply Officer, with a request to take back the excess articles. While so, on 18.1.2008, the Special Squad constituted by the 2nd respondent conducted an inspection and alleged certain irregularities. By Ext.P3 the 1st petitioner's licence was suspended. Ext.P4 charge memo was issued and Ext.P5 explanation was submitted thereto. District Collector had passed an order as Ext.P6, cancelling the authorization of the 1st petitioner and directed remittance of the value of the articles allegedly misused. W.P.(C).22881/2009 2 There was also a direction for forfeiture of security deposit. 2. Matter was taken up in appeal as Ext.P7 before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, who had as per Ext.P8, directed the District Collector to consider the matter afresh. Commissioner had also directed that the District Collector should consider the role of the 2nd petitioner as a salesman in the licensed shop. 3. By Ext.P9, the District Collector passed a fresh order again directing the 1st petitioner to deposit the value of the articles which were apparently remaining in excess with the 1st petitioner and also directing forfeiture of the security deposit. Apart from the same, a penalty of Rs.30,000/- was also imposed and service of the 2nd petitioner was directed to be terminated. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. Prima facie I find force in the submission made by the petitioner that a direction to dispense with the service of the 2nd petitioner has been passed without specific notice to the 2nd W.P.(C).22881/2009 3 petitioner. It is also a moot question as to whether such an order could be passed under the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order. I am not expressing any final opinion on this aspect since the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the Government under clause 71 of the Kerala Rationing Order. If the petitioners therefore, file a revision under clause 71 of the Rationing Order challenging Exts.P8 and P9 within one month from today, Government shall dispose of the same within three months thereafter, after hearing the petitioners or an authorised representative. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs