Allowed

S.Mohankumar v. Taluk Supply Officer, Kunnathoor

Kerala HC21 Oct 2013WP(C)/21875/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court held that a pending criminal case under the Essential Commodities Act did not legally bar the competent authority from entertaining a revision petition regarding the cancellation of a licence. The Court set aside the impugned order refusing to consider the petition.

What did the court decide?

Order refusing to entertain revision petition (Ext. P15) set aside; 5th Respondent directed to consider Ext. P14 revision petition on merits within two months.

S.Mohankumar Vs Taluk Supply Officer… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 21875 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S.MOHANAKUMAR, GEETHA BHAVAN, IVARKALA WEST - NORTH, PUTHENAMBALAM P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN

¶9

SRI.R.ROHITH SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY SRI.V.N.RAJAPPAN SRI.RAJU M.KOSHY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM - 690 540.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

4. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

R1 TO R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

WP(C).No. 21875 of 2013 (H)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF TENANCY AGREEMENT DATED 25/7/2010 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH MR.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI OF THENI DISTRICT.

¶23

EXT.P-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SERVED ON WIFE OF THE PETITIONER ON 15.11.2010.

¶24

EXT.P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASAR SERVED ON WIFE OF THE PETITIONER ON 15.11.2010.

¶25

EXT.P-4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 15.11.2010.

¶26

EXT.P-5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 18.11.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER.

¶27

EXT.P-6: A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE-SHEET DATED 30.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER.

¶28

EXT.P-7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.5.2011 TO EXHIBIT P6 CHARGE-SHEET,SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER.

¶29

EXT.P-8: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 23.5.2011.

¶30

EXT.P-9: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DATED 2.9.2011.

¶31

EXT.P-10: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED THE STOCK VERIFICATION IN ARD 10 OF KUNNATHUR TALUK ON 15.11.2010 MADE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 21.12.2011.

¶32

EXT.P-11: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 28.3.2012.

.2/-

Kss

..2...

WPC.NO.21875/2013 (H)

¶37

EXT.P-12: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER CLAUSE 45 (11) OF KRO DATED 30.4.2012.

¶38

EXT.P-13: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, DATED 2.1.2013.

¶39

EXT.P-14: A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.3.2013.

¶40

EXT.P-15: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.7.2013 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶41

EXT.P-16: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.4.2012.

¶42

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶48

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

The petitioner was running ARD No. 10 under the first respondent from the year 2000. In connection with alleged shortage of stock, the licence came to be cancelled as per Ext. P4 dated 15.11.2010. The petitioner pursued the matter before the statutory/departmental authorities by way of various proceedings, which did not turn to be fruitful. As the last attempt, when the petitioner approached the Government by filing Ext. P14 revision petition, it was refused to be entertained on merits and the position was let known to the petitioner vide Ext. P15 dated 05.07.2013, pointing out that, in view of the criminal case pending against the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act, it was not possible to have the revision petition considered on merits. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this writ petition.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Essential Commodities Act cannot place any bar in considering the revision

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 21875 of 2013

¶53

: 2 :

¶54

petition by the competent authority under the relevant provisions of law. Reference is also made to Ext. P16 order passed by the Government, whereby the revision petition submitted by a similarly situated person was entertained on merit, redressing the grievance of the concerned party. It is contended that the petitioner is also entitled to have similar relief.

¶55

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶56

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is no legal impediment in considering the revision petition. That apart, there is no dispute with regard to the culmination of proceedings vide Ext. P16, whereby in spite of registering a criminal case against the concerned licensee, the revision petition preferred by the said licensee was considered giving necessary relief.

¶57

In the said circumstances Ext. P15 order passed by the 5^th respondent is set aside. The 5^th respondent is directed to consider Ext. P14 revision petition on merit, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶58

W.P.(C) No. 21875 of 2013

¶59

: 3 :

¶60

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the 5^th respondent for further steps.

¶61

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶64

kmd

S.Mohankumar v. Taluk Supply Officer, Kunnathoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mohankumar v. Taluk Supply Officer, Kunnathoor

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

K.Dasan Vs Inspector General (Registration)

Prashob Sugathan Vs the Passport Officer

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar Vs State of Kerala

G.K.Granites Ltd. Vs Bharath Petroleum Company

Ramesan.v.C Vs the Union of India

Mary Sebastian Vs State of Kerala