IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27963 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AISHA ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 50, W/O. ABDUL KAREEM, CHEEMBARAYIL HOUSE, POOMALA, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685 601. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, IDUKKI-685 601. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THODUPUZHA-685 603. 5. THE RATIONING INSPECTOR, VELLIYAMATTOM FIRKA, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-685 603. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27963/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.9000/09 DTD.5.4.2011. EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.2.6.2011. EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION OF THE DIRECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES DTD.NIL. EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED OF THE ADDL.SECRETARY DTD.20.2.2009. EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD.29.9.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27963 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5, an order passed by the 1st respondent pursuant to the directions of this Court contained in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) No.9000/09. 2. In WP(C) No.9000/2009, the petitioner was the 6th respondent. The writ petition involved the contest between the petitioner herein (6th respondent therein) and the petitioner therein, who is not a party to this writ petition for appointment as ARD 174 of Ward No.III of Velliyamattom Grama Panchayat. In that writ petition, this Court interfered with the order impugned, which upheld the claim of the petitioner for appointment. In the course of the judgment, referring to Ext.P14 therein, a power of attorney that was executed in favour of the petitioner's husband, this Court remanded the matter for the examination of the Government. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:- “The matter is remanded to the Government for fresh consideration in accordance with the findings entered above as to the desirability of having the 6 th respondent as an ARD. That question shall be decided by the Government, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner as well as WPC No. 27963/11 :2 : the 6th respondent. If the Government also finds that the 6 th respondent is not a desirable person to run the ARD in view of the findings entered above, the Government shall issue appropriate directions to re- advertise the ARD calling for fresh applications in accordance with law. While doing so the Government shall specifically consider whether because of my findings on Exts.P14 and P15 the 6th respondent is ineligible to be appointed as a licence to run an ARD.” (emphasis supplied) 3. A reading of this judgment will show that taking note of the fact that the petitioner's husband, on the strength of being the Power of Attorney Holder, was earlier running the ARD and that ARD was cancelled due to the irregularities committed, this Court directed that the Government will consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment taking note of the aforesaid fact and as to whether it is desirable to have the petitioner as an ARD. This judgment has become final and binding on the parties. 4. The matter was thus considered by the Government and the Government held that it is not desirable to have the petitioner as the ARD. The finding of the Government as contained in Ext.P5 reads thus:- “Regarding the question (1), it is evident from power of Attorney and Extbt P15 mahazar that the 7th respondent was running the ARD 174 on behalf of the licencee from 15.7.92 till the licence has cancelled on 28.4.2005 on detention of grave irregularity. The 6th respondent is admittedly wife of the 7th respondent who had business connections with the former licencee of ARD 174 who was disqualified for malpractices, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court. WPC No. 27963/11 :3 : According to the submissions of the Revenue Inspector concerned who prepared Extbt.P15 mahazar it is found that the former licencee was not running the ARD himself and that it was being run by the 7th respondent himself. Even thought the TSO had reported that the character and conduct of the 6th respondent are good and she was not involved in any offence under Food Control orders. It seems that being the wife of the 7th respondent who had close business connections with the former licencee of the ARD 174, who was disqualified for malpractices, the 6th respondent is not a desirable person to be granted the licence for running ARD No.174; 5. On this basis, ARD has been denied to the petitioner and it is this order, which is under challenge. 6. Ext.P1 judgment in so far as the petitioner is concerned has become final. If that be so, the Government was bound to examine whether it was desirable to appoint the petitioner as the ARD. Examining the question and adverting to relevant facts, the Government held that having regard to the findings in Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, the petitioner is not a desirable person to grant the licence. Such a conclusion arrived at by the 1st respondent Government cannot be said to be a perverse one, warranting interference by this Court muchless in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp