Allowed

Shakkeena P. v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

Kerala HC3 Jun 2016WP(C)/19168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an order by the District Collector dismissing an appeal as redundant, which contravened a prior judgment directing the reconsideration of the petitioner's application. The court directed the Second Respondent to consider applications afresh.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P7 of the first respondent is quashed. The second respondent is directed to consider the applications of the petitioner and the third respondent afresh.

Shakkeena P. Vs the District Collector… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938H

¶5

WP(C).No. 19168 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHAKKEENA P., MOOSARKANDI VEEDU, KALLURUTTY P.O., OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶12

3. SMT. UMMUSALAMA T.K, PAVITTAKANDY HOUSE, THECHIAD, KALLURUTTY P.O., OMASSERY - 673 582.

¶13

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIKKU JACOB.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rvs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 19168 of 2016 (U)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR NEW ARD DATED 26-10-2015
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR HEARING NO C.S.2-1271/14 DATED 01-02-2016
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17-02-2016
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO C.S.2 1271/14 DATED 24-02-2016
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21-03-2016
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-04-2016 IN WP(C) NO 14836/2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF THE ORDER NO C.S.2-1271/14 DATED 23-05-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

rvs.

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶26

W.P.(C).No. 19168 of 2016

¶27

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner and the third respondent were applicants for an Authorised Retail Distributorship of rationed articles at Ward No.X of Mukkom Grama Panchayath. The case of the petitioner is that without affording her an opportunity of hearing, the application preferred by her was rejected and the third respondent was appointed as the distributor. The petitioner challenged the said decision of the second respondent in Ext.P5 appeal before the first respondent under the Kerala Rationing Order. Later, she approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 14836 of 2016 alleging that despite the appeal, the distributorship is going to be granted to the third

¶30

W.P.(C).No. 19168 of 2016

¶31

-2-

¶32

respondent. This Court, having found that the petitioner's application has been rejected without affording her an opportunity for hearing, disposed of the writ petition as per Ext.P6 judgment with the following directions:

¶33

“i) The appeal filed before the District Collector is declared as redundant.

¶34

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the District Supply Officer on 25.4.2016.

¶35

iii) After hearing the petitioner and the third respondent, an appropriate order shall be passed by the District Supply Officer, within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of hearing.

¶36

iv) Till a decision is taken as above, Ext.P4 shall not be implemented, if it has not been implemented so far. If the objection of the petitioner is sustained, necessarily, Ext.P4 shall be revoked.”

¶37

The case of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P6 judgment, the first respondent has rejected the appeal confirming the decision of the second respondent and consequently, the second respondent is not complying with the directions contained in the said judgment. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the first respondent in this connection. Ext.P7 order is

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 19168 of 2016

¶39

-3-

¶40

under challenge in this writ petition.

¶41

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶42

petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶43

A perusal of Ext.P7 indicates that as per the

¶44

said order, the first respondent has disposed of Ext.P5 appeal which was declared redundant by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment. On that sole ground, Ext.P7 order is liable to be quashed.

¶45

Normally, in a case of this nature, notice is required to be issued to the third respondent, but I propose to issue only a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment. As such, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

¶46

In the result, Ext.P7 order of the first respondent is quashed and the second respondent is directed to consider the applications preferred by the petitioner as

¶47

W.P.(C).No. 19168 of 2016

¶48

-4-

¶49

also the third respondent for distributorship of the rationed articles afresh, as directed by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment.

¶50

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶53

bpr

Shakkeena P. v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakkeena P. v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

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

Pazhanimala Vs State of Kerala

Karthikeyan Vs the Chairman

Reju Pulimoottil John Vs the Passport Officer

Arjun.R Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Mary Matha Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Kodiyathu Kizhakke Veettil Lakshmi Amma Vs the District Collector