IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7202 of 2008(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.G.RAJAPPAN NAIR, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT "RADHAKRISHNA SADANAM", S.N.PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPPLY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHERTHALA TALUK, CHERTHALA. 4. THE RATIONING INSPECTOR, KANJIRAPPILLY, CHERTHALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7202 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is under challenge. Petitioner is appointed as ARD No.175 of Kanjikuzhi, Cherthala. On inspection of the shop, certain irregularities were found and the 2nd respondent by Ext.P1 suspension was ordered. It is challenging Ext.P1 this writ petition has been filed. 2. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without an opportunity as provided in Section 45(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, suspension could not have been ordered. In support of this contention, counsel relied on the judgments of this court in All Kerala Retail Dealers Association v. Taluk Supply Officer (1997 (2) KLT 406) and Abdul Azeez Kunju v. District Supply Officer (1999(3) KLT 303). 3. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the appointment of the petitioner is temporarily suspended. This evidences that further enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner, although it is not specifically stated so in the said order. The issue is whether in such circumstances, suspension could have been ordered without putting the petitioner on notice and WPC 7202/08 :2 : giving him opportunity to state his case. In my view, when suspension is ordered as punishment, then and then alone a dealer is entitled to notice and an opportunity to state his case before passing such an order. 4. On the other hand the provision in Clause 45(8) is to the effect that “ if considered necessary, he may suspend the appointment of the authorised retail distributor temporarily pending enquiry” itself evidences that the officer is entitled to place the distributors under suspension pending enquiry, without putting the distributor on notice or giving him an opportunity to state his case. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel also does not lead to a contrary position. 5. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P1 order. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp