IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1875 of 2011(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18080/2011 Dated 31/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------------- SEBASTIAN.K.V, LICENCEE, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER NO.4, KUTHIYATHODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, KERALA STATE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 033. 2. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, SOUTHERN RANGE, KOLLAM - 691 013. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 4. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 5. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHERTHALA TALUK, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHERTHALA - 688 524. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.S.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1875 of 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1: COY OF ORDER NO.(CS)A5-10184/11 DATED 14.7.2011 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 22.7.2011. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.(CS)B5-24960/66-1 DATED 10.1.1968 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES. ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.9138/C2/66-34/Fd.D DATED 10.1.1968 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1875 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.8.2011 in W.P(C).No.18080 of 2011. The appellant before us challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge, before whom he has sought quashing of Exhibit P9 memo of charges, calling upon the appellant to submit his explanation as to why licence should not be cancelled for the irregularities detailed in Exhibit P9. Earlier to this proceedings, a suspension order came to be issued to the appellant suspending the licence of the appellant, who is a dealer in kerosene. 3. The suspension order came as a result of inspection conducted in the premises of M/s.Jyothi Oil Stores, where the appellant is the Managing Partner of the firm. When Exhibit P2 became the subject matter of the appeal and then the Writ WA.1875/11 2 Petition, the learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P(C). No.15438 of 2011 directing reconsideration of the appeal by the appellate authority. Therefore, what is pending in the appeal before the statutory appellate authority is with regard to suspension of licence. The statutory appellate authority has already dismissed the appeal and the appellant has filed a revision before the statutory revisional authority under Clause 18 of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, which is pending consideration. 4. In the meanwhile, the District Collector has issued Exhibit P9 show cause notice contemplating cancellation of the licence to deal in kerosene products. According to learned counsel for the appellant, there cannot be two parallel proceedings, one before the revisional authority and the other one before the District Collector, therefore, he seeks for quashing of Exhibit P9. According to him, only after conclusion of the revisional proceedings, action can be initiated against the appellant for cancellation of licence. Clause (6) of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968 is the relevant provision to be considered by the Court. The learned Single Judge, after referring to Clauses 6(1) WA.1875/11 3 and 6(1)(a) of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, was justified in saying, suspension is one proceeding and cancellation is another proceeding because the proviso to Clause (6) of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order refers to suspension of licence during the pendency of the proceedings or in contemplation of any proceedings against the wrong doer. 5. Before any such proceedings came to be initiated other than the suspension, the suspension order became the subject matter of challenge before the appellate authority and then before this Court in a Writ Petition and now it is pending in the revisional authority jurisdiction. The proceedings for cancellation of licence is by an authority having power under Clause 6(1) of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order in question. The District Collector is one who has granted the licence and he is the one who has initiated proceedings for cancellation of licence. The proviso to Clause (6) clarifies the position that in a pending proceedings or in contemplation of any proceeding, suspension order can be made. Therefore, the subject matter pending before the revisional authority has nothing to do with the proceedings initiated by the District Collector for cancellation of licence. WA.1875/11 4 However, it is still open to the appellant to answer Exhibit P9 and bring on record all the contentions raised before us and thereafter the concerned authority, depending upon the explanation given by the appellant, can proceed with the matter, which would again give a cause to the appellant to challenge the same, if he desires so. With the above observations, we dispose of the Writ Appeal. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs