Petitioner challenged orders disqualifying her from becoming an authorized ration dealer because she held a license to run an educational institution. The court held that statutory prohibition applied and employer burden to prove full-time engagement was not met, dismissing the writ.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
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 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
NADEERA.M, AGED 36 YEARS W/O. USMAN, MANAKEDATH HOUSE, PINANGODE POST, KALPETTA (VIA), WAYANAD - 673 122.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.G.RENJITH SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.T.H.ARAVIND SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, WAYANAD - 673 101.
5 SMT. PARVATHY K, W/O VISWANATH, VISHNUMAYA HOUSE, PINANGODE POST, WAYANAD - 673 122. BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
2
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE SRI.T.C.KRISHNA
SMT.RASHMI.K.M., GP R5 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
3
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who has participated in the selection process of authorised ration dealer, in relation to shop No.56, within the limits of the 4th respondent, ie. the District Supply Officer, Wayanad, seeking to quash Exts.P5, P7 and P9 orders, passed by the District Collector, Wayanad, Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the State Government, concurrently dismissing the revisions/appeals filed by the petitioner. The brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
4
eligible candidate and accordingly by an order dated 20.10.2017, the District Supply Officer granted license to the petitioner. The 5th respondent preferred an appeal against the order before the District Collector, which was allowed as per Ext.P5 order dated 22.1.2018 and being aggrieved, petitioner preferred Ext.P6 revision before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. However, it was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order dated 23.6.2018, and even though appeal was preferred before the State Government as per Ext.P8, it was also dismissed as per Ext.P9 order dated 22.1.2019, thus, affirming the orders passed by the lower authorities in accordance with the provisions of Rationing Order, 1966. It is thus challenging the said orders, this writ petition is filed.
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
5
the benefits of Ext.P5, P7 and P9 has also filed a detailed counter affidavit, supporting the orders passed by the statutory authorities, and also pointed out that petitioner could not establish any case of arbitrariness or illegality justifying interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
6
there upon that the District Collector has passed Ext.P5 order holding that, since petitioner is running an educational institution, petitioner is engaged throughout, disabling the petitioner from securing a licence to conduct a ration depot. Yet another contention advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, it is clear from Ext.P4 proceedings that, the District Collector has not conducted the hearing, though the order is passed by the District Collector. However, in my considered view, it is clear from Ext.P4 that the District Collector conducted the hearing on 29.11.2017 and various officers, parties, and Advocates representing the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent were present and therefore, the contention advanced on the basis of reports drawn through various officers alone, cannot be said to be an evidence to arrive at such a conclusion. At the most, one could think and visualise that Ext.P4, are only reports sought for by the District Collector from the officers in respect of the establishment run by the petitioner, in order to arrive at just finding and correct conclusions. So much so, when the appellate authority was brought to the notice of an inhibition contained under Proviso to Clause 45 (1) of the Rationing Order, 1966, In my considered opinion, the authority
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
7
had a duty to enquire into the matter. It was after due enquiry and after hearing the petitioner also, Ext.P5 order was passed. It is also clear from the revision as well as the appeal memorandum preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies as well as the State Government, that the licence in favour the petitioner to run an educational institution is not disputed by the petitioner. The case advanced by the petitioner is that, merely because petitioner is a licencee that does not mean that, petitioner is fulltime engaged in running the establishment, so as to disable the petitioner to secure a licence to run the ration depot.
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
8
is engaged in running the establishment cannot be sustained.
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
9
Sd/
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
Jm/
WP(C).No.5055 of 2019
10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY 30.01.2017 |
OF THE ISSUED |
NOTIFICATION DATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY ISSUED BY |
OF THE THE 4TH |
ORDER DATED 20.10.2017 RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY 5TH RESPON |
OF THE DENT BE |
APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE FORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY 29.11.2017 UNDER THE |
OF THE OF THE RIGHT T |
PROCEEDINGS DATED 4TH RESPONDENT OBTAINED O INFORMATION ACT. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY ISSUED BY |
OF THE THE 3RD |
ORDER DATED 22.01.2018 RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT |
OF THE BY THE . |
APPEAL DATED 16.02.2018 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY ISSUED BY |
OF THE THE 2ND |
ORDER DATED 23.06.2018 RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT |
OF THE BY THE . |
APPEAL DATED 03.07.2018 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY ISSUED BY |
OF THE THE 1ST |
ORDER DATED 22.01.2019 RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY 4TH RESPON |
OF THE DENT BE |
REPORT SUBMITTED BY T HE FORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Collector acted arbitrarily in disqualifying petitioner from ration dealer license due to her running an educational institution under a prohibition in the Rationing Order.
Whether the grievances of lack of hearing or lack of evidence prior to disqualification justified court interference under Article 226.
Whether the experience of petitioner as saleswoman could override the statutory prohibition against任用 holders of other establishment licenses.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
NADEERA.M
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD
THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, WAYANAD
SMT. PARVATHY K
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
