IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10601 of 2011(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- A.P. JOSE, S/O. LATE PAILY, AGED 58 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZH KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (AUTHORISED RETAIL DISTRIBUTOR OF ARD NO.60 OF KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK). BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 686 691. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 686 691. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10601 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has been appointed as ARD No.60 of Kothamangalam Taluk. In compliance with the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 solvency certificate for `40,000/- towards security by creating charge over 61 cents of land jointly owned by the petitioner and his brother. It is stated that the property has been partitioned and now a part of the property has been assigned to his brother. His brother wants to get the charge over the property released. Therefore, the petitioner requested for release of the charge on accepting a bank guarantee for the amount equivalent to the required extent of solvency. This request has been rejected and therefore the writ petition has been filed. 2. The justification offered by the learned Governments Pleader is that in the Kerala Rationing Order, there is no provision authorising the respondents to accept cash deposit or bank guarantee. 3. Although the said stand taken by the respondents WPC No. 10601/11 :2 : cannot be said to be faulted, still having regard to the peculiar facts as pointed out, I see no reason why the charge over the property is not lifted accepting bank guarantee for the required amount of solvency. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for `30,000/- being the solvency required, the charge created over 61 cents of land jointly owned by the petitioner and his brother as per Exts.P2 and P3 will be released. It is directed that so long as the petitioner remains as the ration dealer, he shall keep the bank guarantee alive. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp