IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28921 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.S.MINI,AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.UDAYABHANU,KOMALAVILASAM,KALAVANKODAM, CHERTHALA,ARD 122/125,121 CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FOOD,CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY RATIONING CONTROLLER SOUTH ZONE, KOLLAM 691 001. 4. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER CHERTHALA TALUK, CHERTHALA 688 524. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 28921 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 12.06.2008. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ENTRUSTMENT DATED 12.06.2008. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE ANTYODAYA ANNA YOJANA REGISTER CONCERNING ARD 121. EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE ANTYODAYA ANNA YOJANA REGISTER CONCERNING ARD 122. EXHIBIT P5. THE COPY OF THE INTEND SUBMITTED FOR THE MONTH JULY. EXHIBIT P6. THE COPY OF THE INTEND SUBMITTED FOR THE MONTH AUGUST. EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE DATED 3.3.2009. EXHIBIT P8. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.4.2009. EXHIBIT P9. A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.6.2009. EXHIBIT P10. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM. EXHIBIT P11 .A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C)18864/2009. EXHIBIT P12. A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECIEPT DATED 29.7.2009. EXHIBIT P13. A TRUE COPY OF TH STAY ORDER DATED 4.8.2009. EXHIBIT P14. A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.5.2010. EXHIBIT P15. A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION A 514839/10. EXHIBIT P16. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 7.4.2011. EXHIBIT P17. A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE/ORDER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 2.7.2011. EXHIBIT P18. A TRUE COPY OF GUIDELINES AVAILIABLE IN THE WEBSITE. EXHIBIT P19. A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FORMULATED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P20. A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES PREPARED BY GRAMA SABHA OF PATTANAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).28921/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner has been appointed as ARD No.125 of Cherthala Taluk. It is seen that when ARD Nos.121 and 122 were placed under suspension, those ARDs were temporarily entrusted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, that entrustment continued for two months and on its expiry, ARDs were re-entrusted. 2. It is stated that subsequently she was issued Ext.P7 memo of charges alleging irregularities in the conduct of ARD Nos.121 and 122. Ext.P8 Reply was submitted by the petitioner. The third respondent considered the matter and Ext.P9 order was issued finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit of an amount of Rs.17418/-. 3. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, petitioner filed appeal and stay petition before the second respondent a copy of which is Ext.P10. That was considered by the appellate authority and was dismissed by Ext.P14 order. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed Ext.P15 W.P.(C).28921/11 2 revision before the first respondent which was also rejected by Ext.P16. Thereafter, when she was issued Ext.P17 notice demanding remittance of the balance amount under Ext.P9, the writ petition has now been filed. 4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are mainly two fold. One is that for the allegations against the petitioner, she could have been proceeded against only in terms of the provisions contained in the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, issued by the Central Government exercising its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The other one is that the procedure adopted by the respondents are not in compliance with Exts.P18 and P19 guidelines issued by the Government of India. 5. However it is seen that both these contentions were not raised by the petitioner either before the original authority or the appellate authority or the revisional authority. It is without raising these contentions before the statutory authorities, that the petitioner has approached this Court and for that reason, I am not W.P.(C).28921/11 3 inclined to allow the petitioner to raise these contentions at this belated stage. Therefore, the writ petition deserves only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs