IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3893 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- GANESH.S., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.P.K.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, RAGAVILLA, MATHILBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-689 101. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 645. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. PIN-689 101. 5. THE RATIONING INSPECTOR (TOWN), TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. PIN-689 101. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3893 OF 2011(J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 order is under challenge. Petitioner has been appointed as ARD No.92 of Thiruvalla Village. By Ext.P2 order the licence of the petitioner is “terminated pending enquiry”. The writ petition has been filed alleging that contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, the licence has been terminated without notice to the petitioner. 2. The case was adjourned for the Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter. Government Pleader submits that though the word “terminated” has been used in the order, what is intended is that the licence is only suspended. It is submitted that for suspending a licence no previous notice to the licensee is necessary. 3. The issue whether suspension should be preceded by a notice to the affected parties has been considered by this court in Abdul Azeez Kunju V. District Supply Officer (1999(3) KLT 303) and it has been held that for suspending the licence, no notice need be given to the affected parties. If that be so, Ext.P2 WPC.No. 3893/2011 :2 : being only an order of suspension, it does not call for interference on the ground of want of notice. Relying on the judgment in Chacko V. Taluk Supply Officer and Others (2010(1)KHC 461) learned counsel contended that this court has held in the said judgment that notice is necessary. However, a reading of that judgment shows that the case dealt with by the learned Judge was related to an order based on an inspection which was conducted without complying with the statutory provision and it was for that reason the learned Judge interfered with the matter. In the case on hand facts are totally different and therefore that judgment can be of no assistance to the petitioner. 4. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. It is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking statutory remedies against Ext.P2. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/