The High Court quashed a non-speaking order rejecting a petitioners' request to transfer a ration shop licence to one of the brothers due to illness, directing the authority to reconsider the application.
Ext. P4 order quashed; 3rd respondent directed to reconsider Ext. P2 and P3 applications and pass an order within a month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/26TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 4305 of 2017 (K)
PETITIONER(S):
1. C.RAVINDRAN PILLAI
2. C.VIJAYAN PILLAI
BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. CIVIL SUPPLIES DIRECTOR THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE DISTRICT CUPPLY OFFICER KOLLAM.
4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER KUNNATHOOR.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4305 of 2017 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 8.2.2016 ISSUED FROM THE HOSPITAL. |
|---|
| EXT.P2 TURE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.1.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P3 TURE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER |
| EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------- |
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge
rmm
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C).No.4305 of 2017
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of March, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are brothers. First petitioner is conducting a ration shop as ARD 101 at Kunnathoor Taluk and the 2nd petitioner is working as a salesman in the said shop. The licence of the ration shop was allotted to the father of the petitioners, late Chellappan Pillai and after his death, it was transferred in the name of the mother of the petitioners, namely late Chellamma. After the death of the mother of the petitioners, licence was transferred in favour of the 1st petitioner. Now the first petitioner is diagnosed with Cancer and is undergoing treatment at the Amrita Institute of Medical Science, Ernakulam. Due to the inconvenience so occurred, 1st petitioner decided to transfer the licence of the said ration
shop in favour of his brother, 2nd petitioner who is also salesman of the said shop. In order to attain an order accordingly, petitioners submitted Exts.P2 and P3 before the
W.P.(C)No. 4305 of 2017 2
3rd respondent, making such a request. Third respondent rejected the same as per Ext.P4 which is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, under similar circumstances, Exts.P5 and P6 orders were passed by the respective statutory authority thus transferring the licence as requested for.
W.P.(C)No. 4305 of 2017 3
submitted by the petitioners and take a decision on the same.
I make it clear that petitioners will be at liberty to press into service Exts.P5 and P6 order to canvass, the issue of transferring the licence in favour of 2nd petitioner, and a finality shall be attained, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
rmm/20/3/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a non-speaking order rejecting an application to transfer a ration shop licence can be considered valid without reasons.
Whether the authority was required to consider previous orders made on similar facts.
Whether a reconsideration of the application was appropriate given the nature of the rejection.
C. Ravindran Pillai
C. Vijayan Pillai
The State of Kerala
Civil Supplies Director
District Supply Officer
Taluk Supply Officer
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
