IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2011 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12586 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. ALL KERALA RETAIL RATION DEALERS ASSOCIATION, (REG.NO.540/89), K.M.O.BUILDINGS, NEAR CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS STATE SECRETARY SRI.T.MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.IMBICHIMOYI, AGED 53 YEARS, NAUFAL NIVAS, CHERUPPA P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. ALL KERALA RETAIL DEADERS ASSOCIATION, KODUNGALLUR TALUK UNIT, REP. BY TALUK SECRETARY SRI.P.R.SUNDARAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, (AUTHORIZED RETAIL DISTRIBUTOR NO.202), RESIDING AT PETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, WEST LOKAMALASWARAM, KODUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.VIVEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI BHAVAN, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-20, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN & GOVT. PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE R2 & R3 BY SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SC., K.S.C.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12600 OF 2011 WPC NO. 12656 OF 2011 WPC NO. 12657 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NOS:12586, 12600, 12656 & 12657 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th April, 2011. JUDGMENT The challenge in all these writ petitions concern the direction of the first respondent State to the authorised ration dealers to supply rice to the APL ration card holders at the rate of Rs.2/- per kg. For the purpose of implementing the programme, the State issued directions to ration dealers like the petitioners to sell rice at Rs.2/- per kg though they had purchased rice from the godowns of the Food Corporation of India paying Rs.8.64 per kg. It is contended that if they were to sell rice at Rs.2/- per kg they would incur a loss of Rs.6.64/- per kg and that they would have to wait for ages to get the differential amount reimbursed to them. The petitioners also rely upon an interim order passed by this Court in similar circumstances in O.P.23839/2001, where while dealing with a scheme for free distribution of rice, this Court has directed the Government to supply the rice meant for free distribution first, before insisting on actual distribution. Therefore, the petitioners seek similar orders in these cases also, to ensure that they are not compelled to sell rice incurring huge amounts as loss. WPC 12586/2011 etc. 2 2. The learned Additional Advocate General who appears for the Government opposes the contentions of the petitioners pointing out that though the scheme for supply of rice at the rate of Rs.2/- per kg was announced as early as on 25-2-2011, the same could not be implemented due to a prohibitory order issued by the Election Commission. The same was vacated only on 18-4-2011 by which time, the rice meant for distribution during April 2011 had already been taken delivery of by the ration dealers. Therefore, it was only to facilitate distribution of rice at Rs.2/- per kg during April 2011 that the temporary measure of reimbursement of the difference in price was ordered. Since the same was only a temporary measure to tide over an unforeseen situation, it is contended that the petitioners' grievances are absolutely without any basis. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent - State. In paragraph 6 of the statement, it is stated as follows:- “In the present case, since the rice and wheat which are to be distributed at the subsidized rate at Rs.2/- to eligible APL cardholders was already lifted from the FCI godown and distributed to retail distributors, at Rs.8.90 per kg for implementing the WPC 12586/2011 etc. 3 scheme immediately. It is submitted that the direction already issued by the Government to the retail ration dealers to sell the rice and wheat at Rs.2/-, on condition that the differential amount, will be reimbursed by the State Government within 10 days of receipt of the accounts of distribution of rice. This is clearly mentioned in Ext.P2. It is submitted that the ration dealers who distribute the rice and wheat at Rs.2/- will have to file a statement before the concerned DSO through TSO and the Director of Civil Supplies will reimburse the differential amount within 10 days of receipt of the accounts of distribution of subsidized rate.” 4. In paragraph 8 of the statement, it has been stated as follows:- “It is brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that from May 2011 onwards the State Government is directly paying the subsidized amounts to the FCI and FCI will be releasing the rice and wheat at the subsidized rate of Rs.2/- to wholesale dealers in turn will distribute the same to the retail dealers.” 5. In view of the submissions extracted above, I do not find any justification for the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners. It is categorically stated that the difference in the amount incurred by the ration dealers like the petitioners would be WPC 12586/2011 etc. 4 reimbursed to them within ten days of submission of accounts of distribution at the rate of Rs.2/- per kg. It has also been stated that from May 2011 onwards, ration dealers like the petitioners would be able to take delivery of the rice from the wholesale dealer at Rs.2/- per Kg. The above statements are all recorded. 6. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C)12600/2011 contended that large amounts are due to the ration dealers from the Government. However, in paragraph 11 of the statement filed it has been stated as follows:- “The contentions of the petitioners that huge amounts are due towards arrears are not correct and denied by the respondents. The Government has already disbursed Rs.28.44 crores to dealers (both AWD and ARD).” 7. In view of the statements extracted above, I do not find any necessity to issue any further orders in these cases. These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but, recording the statements extracted above. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj