IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29012 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOZHIKODE DISTRICT RATION DEALERS CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD., NO.2659, K.M.O.BUILDINGS, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, JALAJA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. JAYESH, MANGALA AGENCIES, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R4 SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENER FOR R1 TO R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU, FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 31523 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 29012/2008. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DIST. COLLECTOR DT. 6.12.2007. EXT.P2 ORDER OF R2 DT. 12.3.2008. EXT.P3 REVISION DT. 9.4.2008. EXT.P4 ORDER OF THE GOVERMENT DT. 18.8.2008. EXT.P5 ODER DT. 21.6.2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 29012 & 31523 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T These two writ petitions relate to the same subject matter. The subject matter is appointment of authorised wholesale distributor of ration articles. Applications were invited. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 29012/2008 and one Sri. Jayesh applied pursuant to the notification along with others. Originally, the original authority selected the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 29012/2008. That was challenged by Sri. Jayesh in appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Ext. P1 is the order of the original authority, namely, the District Collector, Kozhikode. By Ext. P2 order, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies found both parties ineligible for appointment and directed that the Civil Supplies Corporation be entrusted with the running of the AWD. Both the petitioner and Sri. Jayesh challenged the same before the Government. The Government passed Ext. P4 order confirming the order of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. W.P(C) No. 2901208 is filed by the Kozhikode District Ration Dealers Co-operative Society whom the original authority selected. W.P(C) No. 31523/2008 is filed by M/s. G.R. Agencies represented by its Managing Partner Sri. Jayesh challenging the very same order. Since both the writ petitions relate to the same subject matter, both are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The rank of parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as obtaining in W.P (C) No. 29012/2008. 2. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 29012/2008 would submit that the reasoning given by the appellate and revisional authorities for finding the petitioner ineligible for selection is patently against the law of co-operative societies. According to the society, the society has been found ineligible on the basis of circular no. 10/83 issued by the Government, wherein, it is stated that both wholesale and retail W.P.C. Nos. 29012 & 31523/08. -: 2 :- depots should not be given to a single person. The reasoning is that the society is comprised by authorised retail distributors of ration articles and therefore the society of which the authorised retail distributors are members cannot be given wholesale distributorship also. According to the petitioner, that reason is patently wrong. He would submit that the members of a society and the society are separate legal entities. The society is a corporate entity with perpetual succession with common seal etc., and therefore the society cannot be identified with its members and hence, it cannot be said, in this case, that the petitioner is holding retail distributorship also so as to disentitle the petitioner to hold wholesale distributorship also, is the contention of the petitioner in that writ petition. 3. W.P(C) No. 31523/2008 is filed by M/s. G.R. Agencies represented by its Managing Partner Sri. Jayesh. According to them, the petitioner Sri. Jayesh has been found to be ineligible only on the ground that he is a managing partner of a partnership firm and therefore by virtue of the second proviso to Clause 51 of the Kerala Rationing Order, Sri. Jayesh is not eligible to hold a distributorship. According to the petitioner in that writ petition, the proviso is not applicable to the case of Sri. Jayesh, insofar as he is not an employee of an establishment which only is prohibited by the proviso. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am not inclined to entertain W.P(C) No. 31523/2008 at all because the petitioner therein is M/s. G.R. Agencies represented by its Managing Partner Sri. Jayesh. The very name of the petitioner suggests that the petitioner is a partnership firm of which Sri. Jayesh is the managing partner. The applicat for the AWD was not by M/s. G.K. Agencies, but by Sri. Jayesh in his personal capacity. Sri. Jayesh in his personal capacity has not challenged the orders of the W.P.C. Nos. 29012 & 31523/08. -: 3 :- appellate and revisional authorities. Only a firm which he is the managing partner who was not an applicant for the AWD has challenged the same. The same cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned orders. Accordingly, W.P(C) No. 31528/2008 is dismissed as not maintainable. 6. As far as W.P(C) No. 29012/2008 is concerned, the argument of the petitioner appears to be sound at first blush. But, if we go into the reasons for making a provision by circular no. 10/83 prohibiting giving of wholesale and retail depots to the single person, I am of opinion that in the interest of public distribution of ration articles, the objections raised in the appellate and revisional orders have to be upheld. Of course, the co-operative society is a separate legal entity apart from its members. But, when retail distributors of an area join to form a society and if the society is given the authorised wholesale distributionship, there is every chance of manipulation and corruption. The society is governed by a managing committee elected from among its members. Therefore, the society as such would be run by the authorised retail distributors. If that be so, essentially, both the entities would practically be the same insofar as authorised retail distributors would be running wholesale depots also and conducting the ARDs if the society is appointed as the authorised wholesale distributor. The particular clause in circular no. 10/83 is incorporated with the specific purpose of safeguarding the public distribution system from being manipulated and misused by ARDs and AWDs by joining together. That purpose will not be served if a co-operative society comprised of the authorised retail distributors are given licence to run the AWD also, who would have to cater to the needs of the retail distributors themselves. Therefore, in the interest W.P.C. Nos. 29012 & 31523/08. -: 4 :- of public distribution system, I am of opinion that it is necessary to lift the co-operative viel and find out whether the two entities are one and the same. In view of my above finding, it cannot be said that both entities are not the same. Grant of licence, wholesale and retail, to the single person is prohibited by circular no. 10/83. Therefore, the appellate and revisional orders are perfectly in order. In view of that reason, I do not find any merit in W.P(C) No. 29012/2008 also. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/