Allowed

Thomas Devasia v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Feb 2020WP(C)/2752/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that removing a petitioner's ration card from the priority list without notice or hearing was illegal. It directed respondents to restore the card immediately and ensure future de-listings are done only after notice and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to restore petitioner's ration card to the priority list immediately and ensure future removals are done after notice and hearing.

Thomas Devasia Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2752 OF 2020(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THOMAS DEVASIA AGED 50 YEARS S/O. DEVASIA, MANNUSSERIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, MANNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM 686561

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶11

2 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFIE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 002

¶12

3 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, MAVELI TOWER, M.C ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001

¶13

GP SMT.VINITHA B

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.2752 OF 2020(T)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 13th day of February 2020

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the

¶20

removal of the petitioner's ration card from the priority list to the non priority list without hearing the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither put on notice nor heard before a decision to remove his card from the priority list was taken by the respondents.

¶22

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there where reports to the effect that the petitioner was not eligible for the inclusion in the priority list, which has resulted in a decision being taken to remove his card from the said list. However, it appears that no notice had been issued to the petitioner and that the petitioner had not been heard before the decision was taken.

¶23

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the decision taken to remove the petitioner's ration card from the priority list, without putting the petitioner on notice and without

¶24

WP(C).No.2752 OF 2020(T)

¶25

¶26

hearing him is unsustainable. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents to restore the petitioner's card to the priority list and to hear the petitioner and take an informed decision in the matter. The petitioner's ration card will therefore be restored to the priority list immediately. In case any action for removal from the priority list is being taken, the petitioner will be put on notice and heard before any such orders are being passed.

¶27

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

SVP

WP(C).No.2752 OF 2020(T)

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7/7/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/09/2018 ISSUED BY THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 18/9/2017 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8/1/2018 FILED BY MR. THOMAS VARKEY AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST OF RATION CARD HLDERS REMOVED FROM PRIORITY LIST.

Thomas Devasia v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Devasia v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharan Sreelal Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Shilpa Priyadarshini Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Rameesh .v Vs Manager

Fr.Joby K.Antony Vs Union of India

Latheef.M Vs the Chairman

P.B.Mohanan Vs the District Collector