when he filed W.P. (C) No. 17805 of 2003. Ext.P4 order was passed on 12.10.2001. W.P.(C) No.17805 of 2003 was filed nearly two years thereafter. Even in the said writ petition, there was no challenge to the Government order dated 12.10.2001 (Ext.P4). The pleadings disclose that instead of challenging Ext.P4, the petitioner moved the Government seeking a review of Ext.P4. The Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 does not authorize the Government to review its own orders passed on revision. Therefore, as rightly noticed by the learned single Judge in Ext.P7 judgment, the review petition was not maintainable. It was only after W.P.(C) No.17805 of 2003 was dismissed by Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 6.11.2006 that this writ petition was filed on 21.3.3007 challenging Ext.P4 and related orders. In my opinion, the petitioner who did not challenge Ext.P4 in time and allowed the state of affairs that existed on 12.10.2001 to continue for nearly six years thereafter cannot be heard to contend that fifth respondent was ineligible to be appointed. The pleadings disclose that the fifth respondent commenced running the ARD way back in the year 1994. Nearly 15 years have passed thereafter. At this distance of time, it would not be just or fair to interfere with the appointment of fifth
