Dismissed

Raveendran T.T., v. P.P.Satheesh Chandran

Kerala HC14 Nov 2019WA/1845/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal filed by an appellant-respondent against the Single Judge's order setting aside the District Collector's decision to maintain status quo regarding a ration shop licence reinstatement. The Court held there were no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed.

Raveendran T.T., Vs P.P.Satheesh Chandran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/23RD KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.1845 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23985/2018(W) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28.3.2019

¶9

APPELLANT/8TH RESPONDENT:

¶10

RAVEENDRAN T.T., S/O. BHASKARAN, THADATHIL THATHODIPURAYIL HOUSE, PONNEMPADAM, KARAD PARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673632.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-7:

¶13

1 P.P.SATHEESH CHANDRAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, PUTHUKOOLIL HOUSE, KARAD PARAMBA P.O., FAROOK COLLEGE VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673632.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

3 DIRECTOR, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE, OPP. MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

¶16

W.A.1845/2019

¶17

¶18

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶19

5 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶20

6 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 638.

¶21

7 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-678 638.

¶22

8 THE RATIONING INSPECTOR, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM -678638.

¶23

R1 BY ADV. SRI. P.K. SURESH KUMAR (SR.) R2-8 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER.SRI.V.TEK CHAND

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.1845/2019

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14^th day of November 2019

¶29

A.M. Shaffique, J

¶30

The writ appeal is filed by 8^th respondent in the W.P(C). No.23985 of 2018. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had set aside Ext.P22 order passed by the District Collector. By Ext.P22 order, the District Collector had, after considering the contentions urged by either side, issued the following order (translated version reads as under):

¶31

“O R D E R

¶32

The problems are created on the basis of the order dated 16.3.2014 by District Supply Officer reinstituting the recognition of ARD 116. It was directed to implement the order on the basis of suggestion of Civil Supplies Director.

¶33

A petition was filed by Sri. Raveendran T.T. before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala against the reinstitution of recognition of ARD 116 and the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment in W.P(C). No.31802/2017A says that the licence of a Ration shop cannot be decided on the basis of public interest and right of that decision is vested with the District Collector or District Supply Officer.

¶34

As per the judgment of Kerala High Court the petitioner and the licensee were heard directly.

¶35

The order of District supply officer dated 16.3.2014, regarding the reinstitution of recognition of ARD 116 was not

¶36

W.A.1845/2019

¶37

¶38

implemented due to the protest of Ration card holders. At present the above depot is working along with the next shop. Hence it is directed to maintain status quo and the order of the District Supply Officer dated 16.3.2014 stands dismissed.

¶39

This order is passed as per the power vested in me according to section 45(8) of Kerala Rationing Order 1966.”

¶40

The appellant is a ration card holder of the ration shop, conducted by the first respondent herein. The retail shop of first respondent was suspended in the year 2012, on the allegation that he did not take stock of rice and wheat allotted for the month of September 2012 till 11.9.2012, the ration materials were not stocked in the shop for distribution and the shop was not opened for three days. In a representation submitted by the first respondent, Ext.P8 order came to be passed by the District Supply Officer on 16.3.2014, revoking suspension. English translation of the said order reads as under:

¶41

“O r d e r

¶42

1) Reinstating the licence.

¶43

1. Full bail amount is confiscated to the Government.

¶44

Full bail amount has to be paid to the Government as per challan and the original challan has to be presented to the Taluk Supply Officer, Eranad and the Supply Officer on receiving the same has to implement this order and should communicate the same to the office.

¶45

This order is issued as per KRO 45(8) 1966.”

¶46

W.A.1845/2019

¶47

¶48

According to the appellant, while interfering with Ext.P22 order, the learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that there is a statutory appeal against the said order. In fact, a perusal of the said order would indicate that the said issue had been considered by the learned Single Judge and formed an opinion that alternate remedy is not a bar for entertaining writ petition. We do not think it necessary to interfere with the said finding.

¶49

Yet another contention put forward by the appellant is that when the District Collector had considered the entire matter based on sufficient material, there is no reason for the writ court to interfere with the said order. A perusal of Ext.P22 order would indicate that there is no proper consideration of the entire material facts. The District Collector had only narrated the factual aspects involved in the matter and finally passed an order of status-quo. The order is not a speaking order and does not contain any material or under what circumstances the status quo order had been passed and what exactly was the reason for setting aside Ext.P8 order.

¶50

The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent having taken notice submits that in so far as there is no challenge to Ext.P8 order dated 16.3.2014 of the District Supply Officer, the District Collector had absolutely no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. It seems from the records that subsequently, certain issues had arisen

¶51

W.A.1845/2019

¶52

¶53

and Ext.P8 order had not been implemented. At that stage, when there was interference from the authorities, in not implementing the order, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court as W.P(C). No.31802 of 2017 by appellant herein seeking for a direction that Ext.P8 order should not be implemented. This Court dismissed the said writ petition. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶54

“3. The specific clause pointed out by the petitioner enables the District Collector or any other Officer not below the rank of a District Supply Officer to decide inter alia on the suspension or cancellation of an appointment in the interest of the general public. This does not necessarily include a public opinion poll. There is absolutely no sanction for an opinion poll from the ration card holders, under a licensee, to decide on who should be the licensee of the Fair Price Shop. Further it is to be noticed that the opinion poll is said to have been conducted by a Taluk Supply Officer, who is below the rank of a District Supply Officer. The District Supply Officer's decision on public interest cannot also be on the basis of an opinion poll conducted by an inferior officer. Public interest is an assessment to be made by the officer authorised and it is not synonymous with public opinion.

¶55

For all the above reasons, the writ petition would stand dismissed in limini.”

¶56

Having regard to the fact that the District Supply Officer's order

¶57

had become final and the District Collector had passed the order without sufficient material and the learned Single Judge having considered the

¶58

W.A.1845/2019

¶59

¶60

entire factual aspects and decided to set aside Ext.P22 order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment. S ince no grounds are

¶61

made out for interference, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶64

Sd/A.M. Shaffique, Judge

¶65

sou.

Raveendran T.T., v. P.P.Satheesh Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran T.T., v. P.P.Satheesh Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Housing Finance Limited Vs Shamsudheen A.A.

Abdul Rahim Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Green Valley Farms, Vs Syndicate Bank

Shajima Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Muralichand, Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

State of Kerala Vs Sheela Mohanan