Dismissed

Abdul Rahman.P.S v. Civil Supplies Commisioner

Kerala HC13 Jun 2012WP(C)/12732/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an Authorized Ration Distributor aggrieved by the suspension of his license. The court held that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under the Kerala Rationing Order and directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within ten days. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal before appellate authority within ten days; no costs.

Abdul Rahman.P.S Vs Civil Supplies Commisioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 12732 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL RAHMAN.P.S, AGED 62 YEARS AUTHORISED RATION DISTRIBUTOR AUTHORISED RATION DEPOT NO.123, KUNNUMPURAM KALPATHY, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT RESIDING AT SHABEER MANZIL, FRIENDS COLONY OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING(NORTH) CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶12

THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶13

THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER FORT BUILDING, NEAR KOTTA MAITHANAM PALAKKAD.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C)No.12732/2012

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29-2-2012 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 25-5-2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY SIHABUDEEN TO RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PATIENT IDENTITY CARD DATED DATED 25-5-2012 ISSUED FROM DR. MENON'S HOSPITAL STATION ROAD, OLAVAKKODE.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.05.2012 (NO.DC (NZ) 4/928/2012) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.06.2012 (NO.B2- 776/2012) OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED ON ATTACHING THE SHOP TO ARD No.34.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL.

¶21

True copy

¶22

P.A. to Judge

¶23

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶24

--------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.12732 of 2012

¶25

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2012

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner is an Authorized Ration Distributor of ARD No.123 in Palakkad District, is aggrieved by the Exts.P5 order whereby the fourth respondent suspended the license.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶29

that prima facie findings in Ext.P5 cannot be justified for the reason that he was hospitalised on 25/05/2012. It is submitted further that no hearing was conducted before issuance of Ext.P5.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader submitted that

¶31

the reasons stated in the Ext.P5 are totally justified and therefore this Court will not be justified in assessing the factual aspects in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner has to invoke the remedy provided under the Kerala Rationing Order, to challenge the order.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has got a remedy under Clause 45 (10) of

¶33

W.P.(C)No.12732/2012

¶34

: 2 :

¶35

the Kerala Rationing Order to approach the appellate authority. In that view of the matter the petitioner will resort to the said remedy. If the petitioner files an Appeal before the competent authority within a period of ten days from today, the appellate authority will conduct due enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the matter within a further period of one month. The petitioner can also seek for interim orders in the matter.

¶36

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶37

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶38

skj

Abdul Rahman.P.S v. Civil Supplies Commisioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahman.P.S v. Civil Supplies Commisioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Jayaprakash Vs Dr.K.M.Abraham

Muhammed Anwar Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam

Joyice Vs State of Kerala

Seenamole P.M. Vs T.K.Money

Khalidukutty Vs the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs

Anilkumar a. Vs the Director General of Police