IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 807 of 2011(A) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.USHA, AGED 37, D/O.KUNIYIL KRISHNAN NAIR, KUNIYIL HOUSE, POOMUGHAM, CHERAPURAM P.O., VATAKARA, PIN - 673 512. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE - 20. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, VADAKARA - 1. 4. SHALINI C.K., MANIKKOTH, CHERAPURAM P.O., POOLAKKAL, KAKKATTIL VIA, VADAKARA, PIN - 673 507. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 807 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In response to Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment as Authorized Ration Distributor under the Rationing Order, petitioner and others submitted applications. Eventually, by Ext.P2, the 4th respondent was appointed. Petitioner disputes the eligibility of the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, she is in the process of gathering proof regarding the ineligibility of the 4th respondent to file an appeal and complains that if in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent is appointed in pursuance to Ext.P2, prejudice will be caused to her. It is in the above background, seeking a direction to respondents not to proceed further with Ext.P2 in order to enable the petitioner to file appeal against the said order, the writ petition is filed. 2. Admittedly, under the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, petitioner is entitled to file an appeal against Ext.P2 order. Therefore, if the petitioner files an appeal and eventually succeeds in the appeal, anything that is done under Ext.P2 is liable to be invalidated. If that be so, I am not WPC No. 807/11 :2 : persuaded to think that even if the 4th respondent is appointed in pursuance to Ext.P2 and the 4th respondent starts the business, any prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to think that the appointment and commencement of business by the 4th respondent in pursuance to Ext.P2 should be kept in abeyance and thus cause prejudice in the matter of distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp