Dismissed

K.C.Bindhu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2016WP(C)/4143/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders approving the appointment of a fifth respondent as an Anganwadi/Ration Distribution ARD. The court held that the trial authorities correctly found the petitioner's address to be false and that the contention regarding caste preference was baseless.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the impugned orders regarding the appointment of the fifth respondent intact.

K.C.Bindhu Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4143 of 2007 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

K.C.BINDH, RESIDING AT KODUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAPPALLY VILLAGE, MOOLAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS

¶9

SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶14

4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, IDUKKI.

¶15

5. P.K. AJISH, RESIDING AT PUNNELIL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI

¶17

SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 4143 of 2007 (R)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS.B2-1658/02 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 31.05.2004.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E5-19772/04 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2005.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.(CS)A8-4780/05 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 19.04.2005.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.05.2005.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT)NO.407/06/CS ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2006.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶29

EXHIBIT R5(A): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶30

EXHIBIT R5(B): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 05.02.2005.

¶31

EXHIBIT R5(C): TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN W.P(C).NO.2640/2005 DATED 12.02.2005.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.4143 of 2007

¶36

Dated this the 18^th day of July 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent and seeks for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to run ARD in Elappally Village in Arakulam Panchayat. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to reconsider Ext.P4 appeal and to pass appropriate orders.

¶39

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that a notification was invited by the District Supply Officer calling for an application for grant of licence to run ARD No.122. Petitioner was one among the applicants. The District Supply Officer, after considering the application, Ext.P1 dated 31/05/2004, approved the application of the petitioner and found that she is eligible for being appointed as the licensee to ARD No.122. An appeal was filed by the 5^th respondent who claimed that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed. The District Collector, after evaluating the respective contentions of the parties, found that there were several aspects which ought to have been considered against the petitioner. It was observed that

¶40

W.P.C.No.4143/2007

¶41

¶42

the petitioner was not a resident of Ward No.VII of Arakkulam Grama Panchayat. The address of the petitioner given in the application and in the identity card substantially differs and therefore the address given by her in the application was false. It is further found that though instructions were given by the District Supply Officer to surrender the temporary licence, she did not do so and challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.C.No.2640/2005. That apart, it is observed that there had been complaints against the petitioner in regard to the functioning of the temporary system and the petitioner, while functioning so, violated the relevant rule of Public Distribution System Control Orders, 2001. It is also observed that the petitioner is the daughter of one Smt.Mary Chacko, who is having another ARD. In the application for appointment of ARD and proforma report prepared by the Taluk Supply Officer, there is a question whether the applicant is a near relative of an existing ARD. The District Collector found that this aspect of the matter was not properly considered as a disqualification of the petitioner. Further, it was observed that as per report dated 15/01/2004 of the Taluk Supply Officer, Thodupuzha it was found that the building proposed by the appellant is centrally located at

¶43

W.P.C.No.4143/2007

¶44

¶45

Elappilly, which is convenient for the ration card holders to draw their rationed articles. It was observed that though the vacancy of the ration shop was notified under general category, the appellant, being a member of scheduled caste, his qualification ought to have been considered. Further, the District Collector formed an opinion that the appellant/5^th respondent was entitled for being appointed as ARD and accordingly issued the said direction.

¶46

The petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, who confirmed the said view and thereafter a further revision was preferred before the Government, which also came to be confirmed as per Ext.P5 order.

¶47

It is contended that in so far as the application has been called for in the general category, a member of Scheduled Caste cannot have any specific preference. Further, the disqualification stated by the District Collector was absolutely baseless. Merely for the reason that the petitioner continued with the temporary ARD, does not mean that, in the absence of any request in writing to terminate the ARD, petitioner could surrender the same. The fact that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, should not have been stated as

¶48

W.P.C.No.4143/2007

¶49

¶50

a disqualification. Further, the finding of the District Supply Officer clearly indicates that the place offered by the 5^th respondent was not centrally located and therefore the District Collector was not justified in taking a different view in the matter.

¶51

Counter affidavit is filed by the 5^th respondent wherein it is stated that the 5^th respondent is eligible to be appointed as ARD. It is further stated that notice of hearing the appeal was given to the petitioner and since she was not residing within the limits of Arakkulam Grama Panchayat or in the address given in the application, notice was not served on her. Notice was posted for hearing on 12/01/2005. On that date, a person said to be a Salesman submitted an application before the 3^rd respondent that the petitioner is away at Chennai in connection with a surgery of her mother and therefore time was granted. Hearing was adjourned on two or three occasions, but the petitioner did not appear. Therefore, final orders were passed. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner do not have her own residence in the Panchayat limits. Her address was also wrongly shown. It is further stated that the District Supply Officer had not considered the entire matter in the proper perspective and it is clearly found that the petitioner has not even given the correct address and she

¶52

W.P.C.No.4143/2007

¶53

¶54

is not even residing in the area of operation. It is therefore submitted that the District Collector, having considered the entire issue on the basis of relevant materials, there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the matter. Further, it was contended that the revisional authorities namely the Commissioner as well as the Government had confirmed the finding of the District Collector. Therefore, there cannot be any contention based on the factual dispute arising in the matter.

¶55

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the impugned orders. As already indicated, the District Collector had passed an order, based on relevant materials. It was found that the petitioner has given false address. This is a finding of fact which has been confirmed by the authorities. The District Collector had heard the parties on 16/09/2004, 01/01/2005 and finally on 12/05/2005. Even though three instances were given, the petitioner did not turn up for hearing. The District Collector had considered the entire matter and had arrived at a proper finding. The District Collector was sent through registered post to the petitioner and

¶56

W.P.C.No.4143/2007

¶57

¶58

the same was received on 11/02/2015. Further, several disqualification aspects have been mentioned by the District Collector based on the materials available on record which have not been considered by the District Supply Officer. Therefore, while exercising power of appeal, District Collector had taken a view different from what was taken by the District Supply Officer, which is well within the power of the District Collector.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only factor which was considered by the District Collector in awarding the ARD to the 5^th respondent was that he was a Scheduled Caste candidate. I do not think so. That was also one of the aspects which was taken note of by the District Collector. The District Collector found that merely for the reason that the 5^th respondent is a Scheduled Caste member, does not mean that the petitioner should not be considered in the general category. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as per the findings in Ext.P1 order passed by the District Supply Officer, it was observed that the 5^th respondent's building was not in the notified location and it was just opposite to St.Mary's Catholic Church, Elappally and is 700 Meters away from the Elappally Junction. Perusal of the order of the District Collector would show

¶60

W.P.C.No.4143/2007

¶61

¶62

that the District Collector had relied upon a report dated 15/01/2004 of the Taluk Supply Officer, Thodupuzha wherein it was found that the building proposed by the 5^th respondent is centrally located at Elappilly, which is convenient for the ration card holders to draw their rationed articles. Since this finding of the District Collector is based on proper materials, I do not think that this Court will be justified in taking a different view from what has been stated by the District Collector. So far as the findings of the District Collector had been approved by the revisional authorities, again there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed.

¶63

Hence this writ petition is dismissed.

¶64

(sd/-)

¶65

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶66

jsr

K.C.Bindhu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Bindhu v. the State of Kerala

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

M/S.Prasanthi Cashew Traders Vs the Chief Manager, Canara Bank

Jose.K.a. Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Augustine Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Mata Amrithanandamayi Math Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board and

Mata Amritanandamayi Math Vs the Keala State Electricity Board

Chandrasekhara Pillai Vs Authorized Officer