Dismissed

Gopalakrishnan v. the District Supply Officer, Palakkad

Kerala HC20 Jun 2018WP(C)/1356/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, petitioners sought directions to grant a ration shop licence to a Co-operative Society and quash an order declining the application. The High Court of Kerala examined the matter in the context of ration distribution disruptions and the National Food Security Act, concluding the impugned order was a stop-gap arrangement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with an observation that if the application is to be reconsidered later, a notice shall be given.

Gopalakrishnan Vs the District Supply… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1356 of 2018

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

1 GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O LATE RAMAN NAIR, SRAMBICKAL HOUSE, P.O.VELLINEZHI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2 NARAYANANKUTTY,S/O.UNNEERA KADAVATH COLONY, P.O.VELLINEZHI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶13

2. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, OTTAPALAM - 679 101.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶15

4. VELLINEZHI PANCHAYAT MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, P.O.VELLINEZHI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD-679 504, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶16

5. STATE OF KRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶17

R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT VINITHA.B

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V.

¶19

WP(C).No. 1356 of 2018 (T)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY SUBMITTED CARD HOLDE DISTRICT S	OF BY RS UPP	THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.10.2017 THE PETITIONER AND OTHER RATION FROM VADAKKEN VELLINEZHI TO THE LY OFFICER, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY THE TALUK	OF SUP	THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A-1880/2016 OF PLY OFFICER, DATED 30.9.2016
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY ISSUED BY OF RATION	OF 1ST SHO	THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 26.5.2017 RESPONDENT AGAINST THE LICENSEE P ARD NO.58 (208)
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY SUBMITTED SHOP NO.58 1ST RESPON INABILITY	OF BY (2 DEN TO	THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2017 THE EARLIER LICENSEE OF RATION 08) UMA @ DEVI P.NAMBOOTHIRI TO T THROUGH 2ND RESPONDENT EXPRESSING CONTINUE THE LICENSE
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY SUBMITTED NO.54/52 T EXPRESSING THE RATION	OF BY O T IN SH	THE LETTER DATED 10.10.2017 THE LICENSEE OF RATION SHOP ARD ALUK SUPPLY OFFICER OTTAPALAM ABILITY TO CONTINUE RATIONING AT OP ARD NO.58 (208).
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY SUBMITTED MULTI-PURP DISTRICT S READINESS RATION SHO	OF BY OSE UPP TO P A	THE APPLICATION DATED 8.11.2017 THE VELLINEZHI PANCHAYAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD TO LY OFFICER, PALAKKAD EXPRESSING OBTAIN LICENSE FOR RUNNING THE RD NO. 58 (208)
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY THE DISTRI VELLINEZHI CO-OPERATI APPLICATIO RATION SHO	OF CT PA VE N F P:	THE ODER DATED 13.12.2017 ISSUED BY SUPPLY OFFICER TO THE PRESIDENT, NCHAYAT MULTI-PURPOSE SOCIETY LTD. REFUSING THE SOCIETY'S OR LICENCE WITH REFERENCE TO ARD 58 (208)

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶24

R2(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1880/16 DATED 14.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 23.06.2018

¶25

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2018

¶27

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take steps to grant licence to conduct ration shop ARD No.58(208) without any further delay, and also to quash Ext.P7 order passed by the 1^st respondent, declining the application submitted by the Vellinezhi Panchayat Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd. No.P-1361 to secure licence for ration shop, and for other consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

¶30

Petitioners are residents of Chamakunnu - Vadakken Vellinezhi in Vellinezhi Grama Panchayat, Ottapalam Taluk. The ration shop catering to the needs of the petitioners and other inhabitants at Vadakken Vellinezhi is numbered as ARD 58(208). It was being run in building No.39 of Ward No.2 of Vellinezhi Grama Panchayat. There are 374 ration card holders, altogether, in the area. This would practically mean 374 families from different strata of the society are depending

¶31

W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2018 2

¶32

on the said ration shop. Out of which, 141 card holders are from the priority sector, 32 card holders from the 'Anthyodaya / Annayojana' section, 123 card holders from the subsidy section and 78 from the general category. The said ration shop was functioning from February, 1975. The licence of the shop was suspended by the concerned authority during August, 2016, on charges of inappropriateness against the licensee. Thereupon, as an interim arrangement, the said ration shop was attached with ration shop ARD No.132(240). According to the petitioners, this brought a situation that the people from Vadakken Vellinezhi had to travel a distance of more than 4 kms. to obtain ration articles. Petitioners and other people were facing extreme difficulties for the last more than four years to collect their ration for the said reasons.

¶33

While so, the licensee of the Ration Shop ARD No.58

¶34

(208) was charge sheeted and said to have been imposed a fine of Rs.23,220/-. But the licensee is said to have opted out expressing her inability to continue the licence. Thereupon, things became more complicated and the people were finding it difficult to purchase ration articles. It is also submitted that, the authorities have not made any interim arrangement to

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2018

¶37

meet the situation. It was at that point of time, the Vellinezhi Panchayat Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society came forward to run the ration shop. It is also stated that, a Co-operative Society is entitled for preferential treatment in such matters of rationing as per law. However, 1^st respondent has rejected the application submitted by the Co-operative Society as per Ext.P7 order. Therefore, according to the petitioners, consequent to the rejection of the licence sought for, petitioners and other people of the locality are put to various and innumerable difficulties.

¶38

A counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. Among other contentions, it is stated that, ARD No.58(208) is a fair price shop at Vadakken Vellinezhi, Palakkad District, run by one Ushadevi P. Namboothiri. Finding serious misappropriation, 2^nd respondent and team after conducting an inspection and enquiry, temporarily suspended the licence of the shop on 28.09.2016 under Clause 45(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. Thereafter, the shop was attached to ARD No.132(240), in order to make smooth and efficient distribution of ration articles to the card

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2018 4

¶40

holders. ARD No.132(240) is run by the licensee N. Unnikrishnan and the said shop is about 6 kms. away from ARD 58(208). At that point of time, no nearby ARDs were willing to take over ARD No.134(240). Considering the difficulties of the card holders to travel 6 kms. for purchasing ration articles, the shop was detached from ARD No.134(240) on 14.10.2016 and was attached to ARD No.52/54, which is

¶41

only about 2 kms. from the location of ARD No.58(208), evident from Ext.R2(a).

¶42

According to the 2^nd respondent, ARD No.58(208) is at present functioning and sustaining the distribution of ration articles through ARD No.52(54). Respondents have acted in accordance with the rules of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. Other contentions raised by the petitioners with respect to the agony and inconveniences faced by the card holders are all denied by the 2^nd respondent. It is also submitted that, Ext.P7 order was issued by the 1^st respondent in compliance with the directions put forward by the Director of Civil Supplies, stipulating that all fresh licensee appointments shall be stopped forthwith, till fresh orders are received in that regard. Therefore, it was in compliance of the said directions, Ext.P6

¶43

W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2018 5

¶44

application filed by the Society was declined by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, according to the 2^nd respondent, petitioners are not entitled to get any reliefs as is sought for in the writ petition.

¶45

A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition, and further contending that there is no instructions issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, enabling the 1^st respondent to pass an order like Ext.P7. I.A.No.5670 of 2018 was also filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to produce any such orders passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies Department. Accordingly, learned Government Pleader has produced the order of the Civil Supplies Commissioner dated 09.11.2017, from which, it is evident that directions are given not to issue any fresh licence until further orders.

¶46

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶47

The sole question to be considered is, whether the petitioners are entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the

¶48

W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2018 6

¶49

writ petition. Apparently, the ration shop in question was suspended temporarily consequent to misappropriation on the part of the licensee who conducted the ration shop. The shop was attached to a shop which was situated 6 kms. away, in accordance with law. But, later, realizing the difficulties faced by the ration card holders, the shop was attached to a nearby shop which is 2 kms. away from the ration shop in question.

¶50

The contention raised by the petitioners is that, consequent to shifting of the shop to 6 kms. away, is causing much difficulties to the petitioners. However, the attachment of the shop subsequently to ration shop ARD No.52/54 is within 2 kms. from the ration shop in question, which is not disclosed by the petitioners. There is no case for the petitioners, even in the reply affidavit, the card holders are facing difficulties consequent to the re-attachment of the ration shop to a nearby place.

¶51

Moreover, 1^st respondent has passed orders consequent to the directives issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies dated 09.11.2017, produced along with a memo dated 01.06.2018, based on the request made by the petitioners in I.A.No.5670 of 2018. The said order is not under

¶52

W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2018

¶53

¶54

challenge before this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1^st respondent has acted illegally or arbitrarily in declining licence to the Co-operative Society. Moreover, from Ext.P7 order, what I could gather is that, based on the introduction of the National Food Security Act, 2013, the wholesale intermediaries were given up, and the supply of ration articles is being made through the Civil Supplies Corporation, deviating from the practice of ration shop dealers collecting food articles from the godown. As per the Food Security Act, 2013, the ration articles are being supplied on the door-steps of the ration dealers, so that a re-arrangement in the matter is required, and therefore, at the point of consideration of Ext.P6 application, it was found that the application cannot be considered at that stage. In my considered opinion, Ext.P7 is not an order declining the request made by the Co-operative Society to run the ration shop in question. As pointed out earlier, the same is only a stop-gap arrangement in order to identify the real issues consequent to the introduction of Act, 2013.

¶55

¶56

W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2018

¶57

Taking into account the pros and cons and facts and figures, and the materials placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that, there is no arbitrariness or illegality on the part 1^st respondent in passing Ext.P7 order. Therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶58

However, I make it clear that, if at a later point of time, the authorities find that the application submitted by the Co-operative Society is to be re-considered, a notice shall be given to the Society and appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law.

¶59

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶62

St/21.06.2018

Gopalakrishnan v. the District Supply Officer, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakrishnan v. the District Supply Officer, Palakkad

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

Abu Mathew Vs Ajayakumar

Antony C.C Vs Bhasid Bahulaeyan

The Director of Public Instructions Vs the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Mathew Philip Vs M.P.Jose

Eldhose K.G Vs Sri.Ajithkumar I.as

Saraswathy Amma P Vs Sri Biju Prabhakar,District Collector