Allowed

Prasanna v. Taluk Supply Officer

Kerala HC19 Nov 2015WP(C)/6283/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a retail distributor appointment application. Finding the lower authority misclassified a revision as an appeal causing a limitation bar, the court set aside rejection orders and directed reconsideration as a revision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; rejection orders set aside; 4th respondent directed to reconsider revision as a revision under Rule 45(11).

Prasanna Vs Taluk Supply Officer — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/28TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 6283 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

PRASANNA, W/O.VALSAN, PADIKKALAKANDY HOUSE, P.O.PERUVANNAMUZHI, KOZHIKODE-673 528.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------------

¶12

1. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶15

4. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶16

5. STATE OF KERALA,

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.JOSEPH

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

WP(C).No. 6283 of 2012 (I)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

--------------------------------------

¶25

EXT.P1 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS A4 109/07 DATED 27.11.2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P2 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM DATED 28.1.2008.

¶27

EXT.P3 A COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.P2 DATED 22.1.2008.

¶28

EXT.P4 A COPY OF the LETTER NO.C2082/2007 DATED 20.02.2008 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT .

¶29

EXT.P5 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS 21729/07(1)DATED 24.9.2008 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.11.2008.

¶30

EXT.P6 A COPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.11.2008.

¶31

EXT.P7 THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS/2.5164/08 DATED 6.11.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P8 A COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2010.

¶33

EXT.P9 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS A8 2085/2010 DATED 5.8.2011.

¶34

EXT.P10 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.14902/B2/11 DATED 17.2.2012 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶41

============= W.P. (C) No. 6283 of 2012

¶42

===================

¶43

Dated this, the 19^th day of November, 2015

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P7 and P9 by which her application for appointment as retail distributor has been rejected by the Taluk Supply Officer, which was confirmed by the District Collector and thereafter by the Commissioner. By Ext.P5, her application had been rejected on the ground that the nominee is involved in a case with reference to misuse of essential commodities and violation of the Kerala Rationing Order. The appellate authority by Ext.P7 also have taken the same view. According to the petitioner, she preferred a revision under Rule 45 (11) of the Kerala Rationing Order. However, the same was rejected in terms of Ext.P9 by holding that it is beyond the time stipulated for filing appeal.

¶46

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the time for filing revision is 60 days from the date of service

¶47

W.P(C) No.6283/12

¶48

-:2:-

¶49

of the order. District Collector's order was received by the petitioner on 7/12/2009 and she had 60 days time to prefer the revision. Revision is filed on 27/1/2010, which was within time. However, the Commissioner had treated the revision as an appeal where the time limit was only 30 days and accordingly the same has been rejected.

¶50

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents supporting the stand taken by them.

¶51

Since no other reasons had been stated for rejecting the revision in terms of Ext.P9 order dated 5/8/2011 other than the bar of limitation, I am of the view that the said order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner had virtually preferred a revision by invoking Rule 45(11) of the Kerala Rationing Order. Petitioner preferred a further revision before the Government, which was rejected by Ext.P10 dated 17/2/2012 on the same grounds. .

¶52

Under such circumstances, without going into the merits of the contentions urged by the petitioner, this writ petition is allowed setting aside Exts.P9 and P10. The 4^th respondent is

¶53

W.P(C) No.6283/12

¶54

-:3:-

¶55

directed to reconsider Ext.P8 revision and pass appropriate orders treating the same as a revision under Rule 45(11) of the Kerala

¶56

Rationing Order.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶59

Rp 19/11/2015

¶60

//True Copy//

¶61

P.S to Judge

Prasanna v. Taluk Supply Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna v. Taluk Supply Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Changanacherry Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society Ltd. Vs Sunny Philip

Robin Mathew Vs the Kallopara Grama Panchayat

C.K.Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Anu Joseph Vs District Educational Officer

K.Shahul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala

Angel Mary Vs State of Kerala