Partly allowed

Sasidharan K.R v. the Director of Civil Supplies

Kerala HC11 Sept 2020WP(C)/16978/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of ARD license. Court found force in contention that cancellation order incorrectly stated petitioner raised no objections. Petitioner had raised objections in a reply. Court set aside order for rehearing on specific charges within two months.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P6 set aside for rehearing on charges 5, 6 and 7; fresh orders to be passed within two months.

Sasidharan K.R Vs the Director of Civil Supplies — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16978 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SASIDHARAN K.R, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, VALLACHIRA P.O., VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 562.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR, CIVIL LINE ROAD, KALYAN NAGER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR PIN-680 003. 4 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR, PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR. PIN-680 020. BY ADV. SMT.VINITHA.B ,GP

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No.16978 OF 2020(V)

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order, by which the licence granted to him for running ARD No.265 at Thrissur, has been cancelled.

¶16

2. Even though the petitioner submitted an appeal, that was delayed and the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P8 order. Petitioner points out that Ext.P6 order has been passed without considering his objections in Ext.P2, where he has denied the charges as against Serial Nos.5, 6 and 7.

¶17

3. The learned Government Pleader points out that when the petitioner submitted the explanation to

¶18

show cause notice, he did not state anything except the fact that he was laid up. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, before order Ext.P6 was passed.

¶19

4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner has been running the ARD for the last 30 years and since he

¶20

WP(C).No.16978 OF 2020(V)

¶21

¶22

had already objected to the charges alleged in Ext.P1 in his explanation Ext.P2, the findings in Ext.P6 that he did not raise any objection as against the same, is not correct.

¶23

5. I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. One of the reasons stated in Ext.P6 for cancellation is that petitioner did not submit any explanation as against the allegations 5, 6 and 7 in Ext.P1. That cannot be correct, going by Ext.P2.

¶24

Therefore Ext.P6 is set aside for the limited purpose of rehearing to petitioner on charges 5, 6 and 7. Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Present arrangement will continue, subject to the decision to be taken.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶27

¶28

WP(C).No.16978 OF 2020(V)

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18/3/2008.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 9/4/2008.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1/2/10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 25/4/2013.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14/8/19.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/11/19 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3/3/20.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/6/20 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24/12/2019.

Sasidharan K.R v. the Director of Civil Supplies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan K.R v. the Director of Civil Supplies

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

Eldhose P. Alias, Vs M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Perumethu Gopakumar Gopalannair, Vs Union of India

Arun Sivan Vs Union of India

Jafarkhan.P.H Vs State of Kerala

Naseema Vs State of Kerala

Jabir Usman C.K. Vs State of Kerala