IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 10521 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ A.NAZAR, ANORA HOUSE, POOVATTUPPARAMBA, PERUVAYAL P.O. KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR. T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. P.K.KRISHNAN, PONTEDATH HOUSE, CHATHAMANGLAM, NIT CAMPUS VIA, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, STATE OF KERALA, REP. R1, R2, R4 & R5 BY MR. DILEEP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. MR. V.G.ARUN MR. T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29185 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10521 of 2006(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.06.2004. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN 06/04. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.04.2005. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY ORDER DATED 21.06.2005. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER DATED 24.08.2005. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2006 PASSED BY THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DIRECTOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE kkms/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). Nos. 10521 OF 2006 & 29185 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of October 2009. JUDGMENT Essentially the subject matter of these two writ petitions are connected. Therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. I will refer to the facts in W.P.(C).No.10521/2006 in the first instance. 3. The first respondent invited applications for a licence to conduct ARD No.110 in Kozhikode Taluk. Petitioner, third respondent and others applied. The 3rd respondent was appointed as per Ext.P3 order dated 06.04.2005. This was affirmed in Exts. P4 and P6 by the District Collector and also by the Director of Civil Supplies. The writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P3, P4 and P6. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has been preferred because he is an ex-serviceman. But the notification did not provide for any preference for ex-servicemen. Secondly, the final revisional order Ext.P6 has been passed by the Director of Civil Supplies whereas the revisional power was W.P.(C). Nos. 10521 OF 2006 & 29185 OF 2008 2 to be exercised by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Thus the impugned revisional order has been passed by a person who has not heard the parties. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Government. It is affirmed that the notification inviting applications for appointment of the ration dealer indicated the vacancy under the general category and not under any reserved category. The 3rd respondent happens to be an ex-serviceman. But selection of ARD was conducted for an open vacancy. An ex-serviceman is entitled to a preference provided he is otherwise eligible. 3rd respondent was found to be eligible and hence he was appointed. 6. The revision was heard by the Director of Civil Supplies who was then in-charge of Commissioner of Civil Supplies also. Ext.P6 order was passed by the person who heard the parties. 7. It is clear from the Rationing Order that there is no reservation of any ration dealership in favour of ex-serviceman. But Clause 45(2) shows that ex-servicemen are entitled to a preference, over other general category candidates, subject to certain exceptions, provided they are otherwise eligible. It is in these circumstances, the 3rd respondent was selected and W.P.(C). Nos. 10521 OF 2006 & 29185 OF 2008 3 appointed. There is nothing wrong in such selection. 8. In so far as the contention that the revisional order is passed by a person other than the one who heard the parties is concerned, para 3 of the counter affidavit makes it clear that it was the Director of Civil Supplies, who heard the parties, because at the point of time he was in charge of Commissioner of Civil Supplies also. Later, a regular incumbent was appointed as Commissioner. The file was put up before the Commissioner. The Commissioner thought that since the Director had heard the parties and since he was not otherwise ineligible to hear and dispose of a revision, he should pass orders on the revision. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order was passed by the Director of Civil Supplies, who had heard the parties. I do not find any illegality resultant upon such a course of action. 9. For all these reasons, I am of the view that, there are no grounds to interfere with the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent in ARD No. 110 of the Kozhikode Taluk. 10. The challenge in W.P.(C).No.29185/2008 is against Ext.P7 order. The said order was passed on an application filed the licencee namely the 3rd respondent for shifting the licenced W.P.(C). Nos. 10521 OF 2006 & 29185 OF 2008 4 premises from Building No.9/706 of the Chadayamangalam Grama Panchayath to Building No. 9/203 situated in the same Ward. According to the petitioner, it is not open to the licencee to point out one building as available for running the shop and then shift the shop to another premises. Learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent points out that the petitioner cannot consider himself aggrieved by the permission granted under Ext.P7. It is further pointed out that Ext.P3 will show that the petitioner was disqualified on the premise that he was not a resident in the locality. 11. In my view, the only direction which is required in this regard is one to the District Supply Officer to consider the above mentioned aspect also. 12. The District Supply Officer, Kozhikode shall therefore consider whether by reason of the permission granted under Ext.P7, the 3rd respondent has incurred any disqualification or ineligibility to continue as licencee of ARD No.110. Appropriate action shall be taken if it is found that the licencee has contravened any provision of law by shifting the licenced premise to a building other than the one which was noted in the W.P.(C). Nos. 10521 OF 2006 & 29185 OF 2008 5 original application. The District Supply Officer shall also ascertain whether shifting of the premises would entail any hardship to the card holders and decision on the said aspect shall be taken after notice to the petitioner and also the 3rd respondent, licencee, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/