IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 11153 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.POKKAN, AGED 56 YEARS, MUNDAYIL HOUSE, MOUVENI, KOTTAMALA P.O., NEELESWARAM VIA, KASARAGOD - 671 314. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN SRI.M.J.RAJASREE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD. 2. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, HOSDURG, KANJANGAD. MR.DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.11153/20007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.CS4/143/05 DATED 28/01/2005. P2 : COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF CORRECTION DATED 14/02/2005. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.11153 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of October, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for appointment as ARD 49 at Narkalakkad, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. While his application, namely, Ext.P2, was pending, by Ext.P3 erratum notification ARD 49 was proposed to be shifted to Elerithattu. Subsequently, a new ARD was sanctioned for Elerithattu, and according to the petitioner, there was no need to shift the shop as proposed in Ext.P3. He filed this writ petition complaining that there was no progress in the appointment pursuant to Ext.P1. 2. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated thus:- “Subsequently the Government have sanctioned a new ration shop at Elerithattu in West Eleri Panchayath, where the location of ARD No.49 is changed by giving an erratum on 14.02.05 to the original notification dated 2.2.05. The process of appointment of a new ARD is in progress. Hence the change of site of ARD No.49 is not a matter of necessity at present.” WP(C) No.11153/2007 -2- From the above, it is evident that shifting pursuant to Ext.P3 has been giving up and the respondents propose to proceed further with Ext.P1. 3. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the applications received pursuant to Ext.P1 notification will be processed, and needfull shall be done for appointment of the ARD. This shall be expedited and completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg