Cancellation of a ration shop licence for entrusting its running and management to a salesman was upheld. The court held that the licensee's duties were personal and substitution required permission. Finding no perversity in the concurrent findings, it dismissed the writ appeal.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)8706/2012(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 3.12.2019
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
JOSE MATHEW, AGED 59 YEARS FORMER LICENSEE, AUTHORISED RETAIL DISTRIBUTOR NO.31, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PALAKOTTIL HOUSE, PANNIMATTOM-P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SRI.M.V.BOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
SR.G.P. SRI.TEK CHAND FOR RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 2 :
JUDGMENT
C.R.
Dated this the 12th day of February 2020
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Instant writ appeal is filed by appellant/writ petitioner, who was the licensee of Authorised Retail Distributor, challenging the dismissal of Writ Petition No.8706 of 2012 filed against cancellation of the license of the writ petitioner to run an Authorized Retail Distribution in rationed articles.
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 3 :
was attached to another licensee. Appellant/writ petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext.P3 order of cancellation, which was dismissed by Ext.P6/ proceedings of the Civil Supplies Officer dated 22.9.2010, confirming the findings in Ext.P3 order. Appellant/writ petitioner preferred a statutory revision, which was also rejected by the Government by Ext.P7 order dated 8.2.2012.
“6. I have considered the contentions advanced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that he was not available in the shop at the time of the inspection, no allegations were raised against the running of the shop. It is stated that in the absence of any allegation as to the violation of any condition of the licence, the cancellation of the licence was untenable. On a consideration of the contentions advanced and the contents of the orders under challenge, I am of the opinion that specific ground had been raised in the notices that the licensee, who is expected to be personally involved in the running of the shop, was not actually carrying out any of the duties of a licensee in the present case. The contention of the petitioner that there was no violation of any of the provisions of the rationing order or the conditions of the agreement cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the rationing order requires the licensee to carry out the duties enumerated therein, personally.
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 4 :
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 5 :
been granted the licence in his personal capacity. He is therefore obliged to act in accordance with the rationing order and to answer any allegation of misconduct in the running of the licence. He cannot be heard to contend that the licence can be conducted in absentia. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the orders cancelling the licence on the ground that the licensee was not involved in the running of the shop cannot be said to be perverse or illegal since the statutory requirements of the conduct of the shop by the licensee has been violated by him. The prayers sought for therefore cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.”
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 6 :
any irregularities in the accounts or detects non-compliance with any of the directions issued by the competent authority or contravention of the provision of any order issued by a competent authority under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. According to the appellant, in the instant case, none of these ingredients mentioned in the above provision enabling the authorities to cancel the license issued to the appellant arose and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have found that the cancellation of the license of the appellant/writ petitioner was without authority.
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 7 :
in the shop. It is contended that in view of the fact that there was no violation of the rationing order or any of the conditions for the grant of the licence or even the conditions of the agreement between the parties, the respondents were completely unjustified in permanently cancelling the appellant's licence. It is stated that a duly entrusted salesman had been carrying out all the duties without giving room for any complaint and that the impugned orders are therefore completely untenable.
b. The registers and related records of the shop were not signed
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 8 :
by the licensee.
c. The licensee was not conducting the ration shop.”
Rationing Order, 1966 read as under:
“45.(1) For the purpose of distributing rationed articles, the [District Supply Officer) may, by order, appoint in respect of any area any person as authorised retail distributor in respect of any rationed article:
Provided that the persons appointed or deemed to be appointed as authorised retail distributor under the Kerala Foodgrains (Regulation of distribution) Order, 1965, shall be deemed to be appointed under the subclause.
Provided further that in the event of delay in the appointment of an authorised retail distributor or when the authorisation of a retail distributor is suspended pending enquiry, the District Supply Officer may on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit, make provisional appointment of a retail distributor in respect of any area for a specified period not exceeding six months without observing the formalities prescribed under this order. The person so appointed shall have no right to continue as authorised retail distributor beyond the
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 9 :
period for which he is appointed and shall not also have any preferential claim for appointment as an authorised retail distributor. The order appointing a provisional retail distributor shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Commissioner by notification in the Gazette.
…..................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................
35[Provided that the authorised retail distributor shall nominate a member of his family for appointment as authorised retail distributor, in the event of his being incapable of running the ration business, owing to old age or illness or in the event of his death. The nominee shall be appointed, as a temporary licensee forthwith, on the death of the licensee, without insisting on the proof of financial stability, production of legal heirship certificate etc. The willingness of the nominee shall be obtained by the authorised retail distributor before his/her nomination. The above appointment shall be made permanent, on production of satisfactory proof of financial stability of the nominee. If, the authorised retail distributor dies, without exercising his nomination as provided above, the district supply officer shall appoint any of the legal heirs, nominated jointly by all the other legal heirs, as a temporary authorised retail distributor. Such temporary appointment shall be made permanent, only on production of Legal Heirship Certificate from the concerned authority and after conducting such enquiry, as the District Supply Officer may consider necessary, regarding the financial position of such person and also on executing necessary agreement, as provided under this order.]
36[Provided also that whenever the appointment of any Co-operative
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 10 :
society as authorised retail distributor in respect of any area is revoked, cancelled the District Supply Officer may give preference to the salesman of the concerned retail depot while making the appointment of a substitute retail distributor for that area.
(2) Once in every week, the authorised retail distributor shall submit to the Taluk Supply Officer an indent in duplicate stating the total number of cards, permits and units registered with his shop, his weekly requirement, the sales of the previous week and the quantity required for the subsequent week. After sanctioning the indents, the Taluk Supply Officer shall issue a ration authority to the distributor specifying the quantity of the rationed articles obtainable thereon and the period for which the authority shall be valid.
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 11 :
maintain regular, accurate and daily accounts of each rationed article obtained by him on ration authorities in such form as may be prescribed by the Commissioner by notification in the Gazette and shall obey all general or special directions given from time to time by the District Collector or any officer of the Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of a Rationing Inspector68 [x x] concerning the manner in which and the conditions subject to which any rationed article may be supplied or obtained or kept for household consumption or for establishment consumption or in connection therewith. "[Every authorised retail distributor shall keep and maintain in good condition the aforesaid accounts [for a period of three years] and shall produce the accounts for such period or any part thereof before the District Collector or any officer of the Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of a Rationing Inspector when required to do so in writing.]”
“Number/D.2943/09
Office of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller Dated 29-01-2010
CHARGE SHEET
Subject: Regarding giving of charge sheet - C S Rationing System - Discrepancies found during inspection in Authorized Ration Retail Depot No.31, Thodupuzha Taluk.
Reference: Inspection report of the Dy. R. Controller dated 23.01.10.
Discrepancies mentioned below were found during inspection in Authorized Ration Retail Depot No. 31 functioning in Thodupuzha Taluk of Idukki District dated 23.01.10. A charge sheet is given to the Licensee, Jose Mathew under Section 45(8) of Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and Section 12 (1) of Kerala Kerosene Control Order:
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 12 :
You are supposed to submit in writing in this office if there is any reason for not cancelling the license of the Authorized Ration Retail Depot No. 31 conducted by you forfeiting entire security amount to the Government and more than the stock less and to recover cost of the ration items misappropriated as per records for the afore mentioned major shortcomings/discrepancies within 15 days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet. Otherwise, it will be presumed that you have no explanation in the aforementioned matter and the matter will be decided based on the authority vested in me under Section 45(8) of Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and Section 12 (1) of Kerala Kerosene Control Order. If you have any submissions to be made personally, you are supposed to mention the same specifically in the written submission.
Sd/-
Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller
Shri Jose Mathew, A.R.D./31, Pannimattom, Thodupuzha.”
“I received Number/ D. 2943/09 dated 29.1.10 charge sheet from your office. Responses to the charges mentioned thereunder are as given below:
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 13 :
conducting the store in the right manner without giving any opportunity for complaint. He is keeping accuracy in the accounts also. Occasionally, the salesman used to go to the office. He signs and receives notices and the like. he prepares indent after reaching the Office. Salesman is maintaining a good manner including the approach to the card holders. He has not created any problems for me in such matters. He has been working as a sales man in my shop since 1985. I have faithfully entrusted the shop to him.
Sir, please understand that this complaint preferred intentionally to harass me as there are no other ways to find fault in me who is conducting the shop without giving any opportunity for any complaint. The families of the salesman and mine are dependent upon the meagre income from the conduct of the shop. I did not know that Licensee should be available at the shop always. Kindly accept my reply, exonerate me of all the charges and I request you to declare me as innocent.
Pannimattom, Yours faithfully, 16.2.2010 sd/- ”
Controller dated 9.3.2010 reads as follows:
“PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOUTHERN REGION DEPUTY RATIONING CONTROLLER
Number/D.2943/09 Date: 9.3.2010
Subject: Regarding - C S Rationing System - Passing final order permanently cancelling License Sri.Jose Mathew of Authorized Ration Retail Depot No.31, Thodupuzha taluk. Reference: 1.Complaint received on 12.10.2009.
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 14 :
2.Inspection report of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller dated 23.01.10 and deposition of salesman, Sri. Chacko.
3.Deposition of Smt.M.S.Beena,R.I. dated 23.1.2010. 4.Charge sheet of same number dated 29.1.2010 of this office.
5.Explanation dated 10.2.2010 given by the Licensee.
Inspection in Authorized Ration Retail Depot No.31, Thodupuzha Taluk of which Jose Mathew is the Licensee was conducted on 23.01.10 on the basis of reference 1 complaint. A charge sheet as per reference 4 was given for the discrepancies found during the inspection.
Licensee, Jose Mathew gave explanation as per reference 5 to the aforesaid chargesheet. Apart from this he was heard personally and deposition was documented on 08.03.2010.
ORDER
The explanation submitted by the Licensee, Jose Mathew, details stated during personal hearing and related documents were inspected. Records of the Taluk Supply Office and deposition of the Rationing Inspector were also perused.
Licensee, Sri. Jose Mathew explained that he has been conducting the Authorized Ration Retail Depot No. 31 since 1985. Sri V.A Chacko has been working as salesman ever since. He entrusted the conduct of the shop with Sri Chacko because he was conducting the business in the most faithful manner. It was clarified that Chacko was the one to sign all the records related to ration shop, documents submitted in the office and cheques for amounts received from office. This is admitted in the deposition of Chacko taken during the inspection. Though it was deposed by the salesman that all the replies for the memos received from the office was signed by the Licensee, it was found that in the reply for A4-58/08 was not signed by the Licensee. As
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 15 :
per the deposition of the Rationing Inspector, FIRKA it is stated that all the records are presented and chargesheet and the like are received by salesman, Sri Chacko. Rationing Inspector informed that it is noted when the licensee is not present during the inspection and once when she visited as required by the District Supply Officer the presence of Licensee was noted. District Supply Officer must have required so on the basis of the complaint that the Licensee is not conducting the shop. Apart from this occasion it is not seen that the licensee has any part in the conduct of the business in the shop.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that though the license of No. 31 ration shop is in the name Sri. Jose Mathew, he has no part in the conduct or management of affairs of the shop and salesman, Sri Chacko is conducting the shop completely. The said act is in violation of the faith entrusted by the Government in the Licensee and responsibilities of the Licensee. It is also a violation of Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, the agreement entered by the Licensee with the government and related provisions. It is considered that letting the licensee who is a namesake license holder and practically entrusting the conduct and management of the ration shop to another person, to continue will be harmful for the public interest of the Government and the card holders. Accordingly, the license given to Shri Jose Mathew to conduct ARD No.31 is cancelled permanently.
I pass this order on the basis of the authority vested me as per Rule 45(8) in Kerala Rationing Order 1966.
The Taluk Supply Officer shall report within 7 days after incrimination of this order.”
16.3.2010 reads as follows:
Subject: Regarding - Inspection of Deputy Controller of Rationing, Kollam in Thodupuzha Taluk, ARD No.31 - cancellation of license permanently - order passed.
Reference: 1. Inspection report of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller dated 23.1.10.
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 16 :
Deputy Rationing Controller, Kollam conducted inspection in Authorized Ration Retail Depot No. 31, Pannimattom, Thodupuzha Taluk of which Jose Mathew is the Licensee on 23.01.2010 based on the complaint received. The following discrepancies were noted:
The discrepancies found in the inspection are very serious and in violation of various provisions of Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and the agreement entered the Licensee with the government. In the above circumstances, letting the licensee to continue in the ration distribution field will be harmful for the public interest and the interest of the Government. Hence, the license of No.31 authorized Ration retail store is cancelled permanently as per section 45 (8) of the KRO by the Deputy Rationing Controller, Kollam as per reference (2). As per the above reference, the order has to be implemented by adding the names of the registered ration card holders of No.31 authorized Ration retail store to the nearest ration shop without causing difficulty to them.
Sd/-
Taluk Supply Officer Thodupuzha”
MAHAZAR
Mahazar prepared by Rationing Inspector, FARKA, Velliamattom in compliance of the order No. D-2943/09 of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller dated 09.03.2010 and order No. A4-194/2010 of Taluk Supply Officer, Thodupuzha dated 16.3.2010 on 17.3.2010 at 10.30 AM.
I reached the ration store on 17.03.2010 at 10.30 AM to implement the order of permanent cancellation issued to the No. 31
: 17 :
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
authorized Ration retail store, Pannimattom, Thodupuzha Taluk of which Jose Mathew is the Licensee on the basis of the inspection conducted by Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller on the basis of the complaint received against the ration shop.
At that time Jose Mathew, owner of ARD 31 was present in the shop. Salesman, PA Chacko was also present. Order No. D- 2943/09 of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller dated 09.03.2010 and Order No. A4 194/2010S of Taluk Supply Officer, Thoduphuzha dated 16.03.2010 was given to ARD 31 and sign was collected. Subsequently, the Licensee of Shop No. 146, Velliamattom, Pannimattom was called to the shop. He was directed to take over and conduct business in Shop 31. Sri M J Mathew, who was the owner of Shop No. 146 to which Shop 31 was temporarily attached, was directed to distribute ration from the place where ration shop 31 is now functioning without causing difficulty to the card holders. Order No.D-2943/2010 of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller dated 09.03.2010 and Order No. A4-194/2010 of Taluk Supply Officer, Thoduphuzha dated 16.03.2010 was given to him and sign was collected. The stock information of ARD 31 on inspection is as given below:
APL CMR : 50 Kg. BPL BR : 100Kg. “CMR : 167 Kg. AAY BR : 205 " MSP (Wheet) : 40 Kg. APL (Wheat) : 20 Kg. BPL (Wheat) : 150 Kg. Kerosene Oil : 50 Litre
On inspection of the original stock it was clearly understood that the stock as per stock register was available. All these stocks were given to the Licensee of Shop No.146 and the same was entered in the new stock register. The card register, ledger, old records and registers of ARD 31 was given to ARD 146 and receipt was taken on the condition that the same shall be produced on the place and tine as and when required. ARD 146 was directed to pay Rs. 2771/which the price of ration items given to him within 3 days at Taluk Supply office, Thodupuzha and take receipt of the same. Stock register, naluvazhi, bill book, Inspection book and complaint book of ARD 31 was given to ARD 146. ARD 146 was directed to make necessary corrections in the notice board in front of ARD 31. The
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 18 :
notice attaching ARD 31 to ARD 146 after permanently cancelling the license of ARD 31 was affixed in front of ARD 31. The proceedings thus came to an end at 12 PM. No parties were affected by the preparation of mahazar in the said way. This Mahazar is prepared by Velliyamattom FARKA Rationing Inspector Chinnamma Samuel.
Sd/-
R.I. Veliyamattam
as follows:
“PROCEEDINGS OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICER
(Present: Smt: M.S. Jaya, IAS)
No.(C.S.)A5-7636/10 Dated 22/9/2010
Subject: Regarding - Public Distribution - Deputy Controller of Rationing, Kollam in Thodupuzha Taluk permanently cancelled of license of ARD No. 31 - Appeal submitted by Jose Mathew was heard personally - order being passed.
Reference: 1. Charge sheet of Number/D.2943/09 dated 29.01.2010 of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller. 2. Proceedings Number/D.2943/09 of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller dated 09.03.2010.
Deputy Rationing Controller, Kollam conducted inspection in No. 31 authorized Ration retail store, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki District of which Jose Mathew is the Licensee on 23.01.2010 based on the complaint preferred by Sri.P.K.Sajeevan. There was no difference in the stock during the time of inspection.
Following discrepancies were found during the time of Inspection: 1. Licensee was not available in the store at the time of the inspection.
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 19 :
Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller. After perusing records of the Taluk Supply Office and deposition of the Rationing Inspector, Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller as per reference 2 permanently cancelled the license given to Sri.Jose Mathew to conduct No.31 Ration Shop.
Sri Jose Mathew preferred appeal as per reference 3 against reference 2 order. For adjudicating the appeal, it was decided to hear affected parties on 21.7.2010.
ORDER
On 21.07.2010, the appellant and his counsel appeared and raised arguments. The important arguments raised by the appellant are as below:
No anomalies were found in No. 31 ration shop of which the appellant was the licensee. The appellant does not sit in the ration depot because he has allergy. It is because of this the salesman is entrusted. The appellant has remitted the subscription of Ration Vyapari Welfare Fund without default from the date it came to existence till the cancellation of license.
There is no rule that licensee himself should produce indent. Authorized salesman can produce. The charge is that only salesman was available in the shop. No complaints were given by card holders, ration wholesalers or nearby locals. Though the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller is saying that the action is being taken based on the complaint, statement of the complainant was not taken. The appellant has not done any offence to impose capital punishment.
On perusal of the arguments raised by the appellant and available documents, the facts as below are understood.
Ration Vyapari Welfare Fund came to existence on January, 2000. Membership is given in the name of the licensee. Even if the licensee entrust the shop to someone, he is liable to pay the subscription in his name. The Welfare Fund Office only inspects if the subscription in the name of the licensee has been paid regularly. So, there is no relevance in the contention that licensee is paying the subscription regularly.
As per Clause 46 (2) of Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, the licensee of a ration retail shop should submit the intend containing accounts of sales of previous week, income, residue, cards/ permits and ration items needed for the week to Taluk Supplies Officer every week. The meaning of authorized ration retailer should submit is that he should sign and submit it personally. Since employment of salesmen as part time/full time is
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 20 :
permitted, it cannot be said there is any discrepancy in sending the Intend with the salesman after the licensee signing it. But Jose Mathew has deposed that salesman Sri.Chacko is signing all the documents received from the office.
The licensee has no authority entrust the management of the ration shop to anyone of his liking in his absence.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is found that there is no need to interfere with reference 2 order permanently cancelling the license given to Sri.Jose Mathew for conducting No.31 Ration Shop in Thodupuzha Taluk. Therefore, the order in reference 2 proceedings is upheld. The appeal submitted by Sri Jose Mathew as per reference 3 is decided accordingly.
I am passing this order as per power conferred on me under Clause 45(10) of Kerala Rationing Order, 1966.
Sd/-
Civil Supplies Director”
“GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
ABSTRACT
Civil Supplies Department - Cancellation of License of ARD 31, Thodupuzna Taluk - Revision petition of Sri Jose Mathew is decided - Order passed.
CIVIL SUPPLIES (B) DEPARTMENT
G.O.(ORD.) No.47/12/CSD. Thiruvananthapuram, Dated 08.02.12
Reference: 1. Proceedings Number/ D. 2943/09 of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller dated 09.03.2010.
ORDER
Inspection in Authorized Ration Retail Depot No.31, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki District of which Jose Mathew is the Licensee was
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 21 :
conducted on 23.01.10 by Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller on the basis of complaint by Sri P.K Sajeevan.
Following discrepancies were found during the time of inspection:
Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller gave chargesheet to the licensee for above charges. The licensee gave explanations for the aforesaid charges and Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller heard him personally.
The explanation submitted by the Licensee, Jose Mathew, details stated during personal hearing and related documents were inspected by Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller. After perusing records of the Taluk Supply Office and deposition of the Rationing Inspector, Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller as per reference 1 permanently cancelled the license given to Sri Jose Mathew to conduct No. 31 Ration Shop.
Sri Jose Mathew preferred appeal against this order before Civil Supplies Director.
The Civil Supplies Director disposed of the appeal as per reference 2 order stating that the order of the Southern Region Deputy Rationing Controller cannot be interfered with for the reason that licensee has no authority entrust the management of the ration shop to anyone of his liking in his absence. Sri Jose Mathew submitted revision petition against this order to the Government as per reference 3.
Civil Supplies Deputy Secretary personally heard Sri Jose Mathew on 16.11.2011. He presented his arguments through Advocate Sivarajan. Sri.Jose Mathew stated that the complainant does not sit in the ration depot because he has allergy, there is no rule that licensee himself should produce Intend after signing, salesman can also produce, the charge is that only salesman was available in the shop, no complaints were given by card holders, ration wholesalers or nearby locals, he is a member of Ration Vyapari Welfare Fund Board and he has been remitting the subscription regularly. Jose Mathew also stated that the investigating officer could not prove that the ration shop was not conducted through the
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 22 :
licensee.
On perusal of the arguments raised by Sri Jose Mathew at the time of the hearing and related documents, it is understood that Sri Jose Mathew is not conducting the shop personally. Petitioner has conceded to this at the time of hearing. As per the terms of Kerala Rationing Order, licensee has no authority entrust the management of the ration shop to anyone of his liking in his absence. But it is seen that Sri Jose Mathew has entrusted someone for managing the shop. The order of the Civil Supplies Director as per reference 2 is upheld and the reference 3 revision submitted by Sri Jose Mathew is dismissed as it is evident that Sri Jose Mathew is not managing the shop personally.
Order of the Governor, D. Shylajakumari Amma, Deputy Secretary.”
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 23 :
his own, to entrust running and managing of a ration shop to anyone, in his absence. There is a clear finding of violation of the Kerala Rationing Order. Writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to ascertain as to whether the process in arriving at the decision has been followed or not, and not to interfere with the decision unless it is palpably erroneous or perverse.
(i) In State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev reported in (2005) 5 SCC 181 = AIR 2005 SC 2080, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus,
".......to characterize a decision of the administrator as "irrational'' the Court has to hold, on material, that it is a decision "so outrageous'' as to be in total defiance of logic or moral standards."
(ii) In State of A.P. v. Abdul Khuddus reported in 2007 (15) SCC 261, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 12, held that,
"The High Court, while reversing the findings of the Special Court could also not come to a conclusion of fact that the respondents had perfected their title in respect of the schedule land by adverse possession or that the schedule land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society. Such being the position, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court, which had set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court, which, in our view, were arrived at on consideration of the materials on record and which, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be based on no evidence or surmises or conjectures and
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 24 :
therefore, it was not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court which were based on sound consideration of the materials on record."
(iii) In Arulvelu v. State reported in (2009) 10 SCC 206, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paragraphs 27, 29 and 30, explained what "perverse" means. Said paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner:
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 25 :
"9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny.
"7. In the present case, the stage at and the points on which the challenge to the assessment in judicial review was raised and entertained was not appropriate. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in constituting itself into a court of appeal against the assessment. While it was open to the respondent to have raised and for the High Court to have considered whether the denial of relief under the proviso to Section 39(5) was proper or not, it was not open to the High Court re-appreciate the primary or perceptive facts which were otherwise within the domain of the fact-finding authority under the statute. The question whether the transactions were or were not sales exigible to
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 26 :
sales tax constituted an exercise in recording secondary or inferential facts based on primary facts found by the statutory authorities. But what was assailed in review was, in substance, the correctness - as distinguished from the legal permissibility - of the primary or perceptive facts themselves. It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law."
(iv) In The General Manager (P) Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 233, at Paragraph 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows:
"24. Absence of reasons in a disciplinary order would amount to denial of natural justice to the charge-sheeted employee. But the present case was certainly not one of that category. Once the charges were found to have been established, the High Court had no reason to interfere in the decision. Even though there was sufficient documentary evidence on record, the High Court has chosen to hold that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, AIR 1994 SC 1341. Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. The legal position in this behalf has been recently reiterated in Arilvelu v. State , (2009) 10 SCC 206. The decision of the High Court cannot therefore be sustained.
W.A.No.255 OF 2020
: 27 :
(v) In S.R.Tiwari v. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602, at Paragraph 30, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows:
"30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is against the weight of evidence, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.”
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
jes
2 issues framed by the court
Was cancellation of a ration shop licence justified where the licensee entrusted its running and management to a salesman without permission?
Were the concurrent findings supporting cancellation perverse so as to warrant interference under Article 226?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of NCT of Delhi v. SanjeevRelied on¶221
(2005) 5 SCC 181 = AIR 2005 SC 2080 · Who else cites this
State of A.P. v. Abdul KhuddusRelied on¶223
2007 (15) SCC 261 · Who else cites this
Arulvelu v. StateRelied on¶228
(2009) 10 SCC 206 · Who else cites this
The General Manager (P) Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya SinghRelied on¶245
(2010) 11 SCC 233 · Who else cites this
S.R.Tiwari v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶249
(2013) 6 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
JOSE MATHEW
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING
THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
