IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19301 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.BALAKRISHNAN, SECRETARY, ALL KERALA RETAIL DEALERS ASSN., NO.540/89, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.SARATH.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ALAPUZHA. 5. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPZHA. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.19301 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Secretary of the Ambalapuzha Taluk Retail Ration Dealers Association. In this writ petition, he is aggrieved by the sanctioning of a new ARD by the Government which according to the petitioner would adversely affect one of the ARDs who is functioning in the area in question. According to the petitioner, the existing ARDs are more than sufficient to cater to the needs of the people of the locality and therefore the starting of a new ARD is malafide. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am of opinion that this Court cannot decide as to the necessity of starting a new ARD in a locality. It is for the Government to decide that matter as a policy. Although the petitioner alleges malafides, absolutely no material has been placed before me in support of such a contention. In any event, I find that the petitioner himself admits that there were earlier two ARDs which W.P.(c)No.19301/08 2 were stopped and the cards attached to those two ARDs were attached to other ARDs. Therefore, it is evident that in the place of those two ARDs a new ARD has been sanctioned. Therefore on merits also I do not find any subsistence in the contentions raised in the writ petition. In the above circumstances, the writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.19301/08 3