IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30249 of 2005(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ALL KERALA KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALERS ASSOCIATION, XIV/869, SHORNUR ROAD, WEST NADAKKAVU REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, C.ZACHARIAH VARGHESE BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.T.R.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22 /08/2008 , ALONG WITH WPC NO. 27816 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30249 of 2005 EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2555/98 HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 17.2.1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.15098/03(V) HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22.1.04. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 4.8.04. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. 2580/98 HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 7.1.1999. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.1424/99 DATED 16.12.2003 HIGH COURT OF KEARALA. EXT.P6: COPY OF REVIEW PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2 DATED 15.1.05. EXT.P7: COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P8; COPY OF LETTER OF GOVT. OF INDIA DTD 31.5.83. EXT.P9: COPY OF LETTER OF GOVT OF INDIA TO R1 DTD 8.4.2000. EXT.P10: COPY OF LETTER OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD 17.10.2002. EXT.P11: COPY OF ORDER DTED 27.8.2005 ISSUED BY R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.30249 OF 2005 & W.P.(C) NO.27816 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The question involved in these two writ petitions is as to whether when there is a price variation of kerosene, dealers appointed under the kerala Ration Control Order can keep the differential cost as theirs instead of remitting it to the Government. That question is squarely covered by State of Kerala and others V. Mathunni Mathew & Sons [ILR 2007 (2) Kerala 475]. Therefore, following that decision, I dismiss these two writ petitions. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd