IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17819 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.SURENDRAN, S/O.NANU, AGED 50 YEARS, MANATHANA AMSOM, MOORIYAD DESOM, PERAVOOR POST, THALASSERI TALUK. 2. N.RAJESH, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEARS, NADAPURAM HOUSE, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM, THALASSERI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, P.O.KANNUR. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR, P.O.KANNUR. 3. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,THALASSERI TALUK, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, P.O.THALASSERI. 4. K.BABY SURESH, PUTHIYA VEETTIL, PERAVOOR, P.O.PERAVOOR. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17819/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM VISIT BOOK, RECORDED ON 26/10/07, 25/2/09 RECORDED BY RATIONING INSPECTOR AND DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER POINTING OUT IRREGULARITIES. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF -DO- -DO- EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF -DO- -DO- DATED 2.1.2010 BY RATIONING INSPECTOR. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF -DO- -DO- DATED 28.1.2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF -DO- -DO- DATED 23.11.2009 JOINTLY CONDUCTED BY RATIONING INSPECTOR, MALOOR AND RATIONING INSPECTOR, PERAVOOR. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT APPEARED IN NEWSPAPER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 7.3.11 SUBMITTED TO R.I. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 29.3.2011 SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT COPY TO R.I. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17819 OF 2011 (B) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be ration card holders allotted to shop ARD No.186. On suspension of the aforesaid licence, ration articles are now supplied through ARD No.174. In this writ petition petitioners submit that the authorities are likely to revoke the suspension, and therefore, they seek a direction to the respondents not to revoke the suspension of the 4th respondent, the licencee of shop ARD No.186. 2. In my view, this writ petition is misconceived. Under the Rationing Order, the authorities are competent to issue order of revocation, and therefore, what the petitioners want is an injunction restraining the authorities from exercising their statutory powers. Such an order cannot be passed. On the other hand, if the order of revocation is illegal for some reason, it is upto the aggrieved persons to challenge the said order in appropriate manner at that stage and that too in the manner as WPC No. 17819/11 :2 : stipulated. At this stage, this writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp