IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3264 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.K.SAHADEVAN, ARD NO.129, MUTHUKULAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.MR.V.V.ASOKAN MR.K.S.SAJI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 5. V.PRASANNA KUMARI, AMBIKALAYAM, CHOOLATHERUVU, MUTHUKULAM NORTH, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH R5 BY ADVS.MR.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA.V . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3264/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 11.11.05. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20.6.08. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 7.1.2010. P4:- COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 1.2.2010. P4(a):- COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 1.2.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R5(a):- COPY OF THE RATION LEDGER BOOK. R5(b):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MUTHUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD. 2.12.08. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.3264/2010-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the District Collector whereby appointment of the petitioner as Authorised Retail Distributor was set aside and the fifth respondent was appointed in his place. 2. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stand taken by the respondents that the order was implemented on 30/01/2010 cannot be said to be true as the order itself was served by affixture in his shop on 30/01/2010 only. It is pointed out that there cannot be any distribution of ration articles by the fifth respondent without allowing the said respondent to receive the ration articles from the concerned depot and without providing ledgers, registers etc. and keeping them in the shop. It is submitted that the right of the petitioner to avail statutory remedy or to approach this Court was tried to be frustrated by the over enthusiastic attitude of the Taluk Supply Officer in accepting the frivolous contentions of the fifth respondent. It is contended that the fifth W.P.(C). No.3264/2010 -:2:- respondent's husband is another Authorised Retail Distributor, namely, ARD.No.128 and actually, the ration shop now conducted by the fifth respondent was allowed to be operated by transferring goods from the said shop to the fifth respondent's newly operated shop. It is therefore, submitted that the entire action taken to implement Ext.P3 is clearly mala fide in the light of the relevant Clauses of the Kerala Rationing Order and the fifth respondent is benefited from the illegal activities of the officials. 4. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted, based on the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, that the order was implemented on 30/01/2010 and he placed reliance on the Ration Ledger extract produced as Ext.R5(a) in the counter affidavit. It is pointed out that Ext.P3 order was implemented on 30/01/2010 by sealing the A.R.D of the petitioner and by opening of A.R.D by the fifth respondent. The sealing of A.R.D was necessitated because though 30th January, 2010 was a working day for the ARD's, the writ petitioner did not keep open the shop on that day. After sealing the ARD of the petitioner, the Officers from the Taluk Supply Office came to her shop in the evening and made entries in the necessary ledgers and registers relating to the rationed articles supplied to her and its W.P.(C). No.3264/2010 -:3:- opening was officially done. Card holders came to the shop and received rationed articles from the shop. 5. There is no averment in the affidavit filed by the fifth respondent with regard to the receipt of the rationed articles. Therefore, there is a mystery with regard to the distribution of ration articles by the fifth respondent without it being supplied by the concerned agencies. 6. The stand taken by the Taluk Supply Officer, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader, is that even though the petitioner was tried to be contacted from the morning of 30/01/2010, he was not in his house and his wife was not prepared to receive the copy of the order and she was also not able to contact him. They waited till 5 p.m in front of the A.R.D run by the petitioner and since he did not came to the shop to open the depot, the Taluk Supply Officer implemented the order by allowing the fifth respondent to start functioning the depot in the building concerned and the order, Ext.P3, was served by affixture on the door of the petitioner's depot housed in Building No.III/66 of Muthukulam Grama Panchayat in the presence of two witnesses. The rationed articles kept in the said building have been sealed also. 7. Going by these developments, it is clear that prima facie an attempt was made to frustrate the remedy of W.P.(C). No.3264/2010 -:4:- the petitioner to approach the higher authorities or this Court to seek effective interim orders in the matter. I am not finally pronouncing on that aspect. Now, there is a controversy with regard to the opening of the shop run by the petitioner on 30/01/2010, as according to the respondents it was remaining closed. Therefore, it is a matter requiring appropriate enquiry by the Civil Supplies Commissioner before whom the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 revision along with a stay petition [Ext.P4(a)]. There will be a direction to the Civil Supplies Commissioner to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4(a) stay petition with notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent, at any rate, within a period of three weeks. The present arrangement made will be only till an appropriate order is passed, as sought for, in Ext.P4(a). The crucial aspects as noted above will be enquired into by the Civil Supplies Commissioner either directly or through any competent Officer in the Department. The revision petition itself will be disposed of within a period of three months, after hearing the parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms