Disposed

Remya v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2020WP(C)/7652/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court directed the State and supply officers to complete pending selection proceedings for an Authorized Ration Depot license within three months in compliance with prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to process applications in accordance with Ext.P2 judgment, extend hearing opportunity, and take a final decision within three months.

Remya Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020/30TH AGRAHAYANA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.7652 OF 2018(F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

REMYA, AGED 33, W/O.SUNILAN, THAZHATHUKATTIL HOUSE, PUTHURKARA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶13

3 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR TALUK, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶15

ADDL. 5

¶16

N.P. KOCHURANI,NEELAMKAVIL HOUSE, PULLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

(ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.05.2018 IN IA NO. 8835/2018).

¶18

WP(C) No.7652/2018

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

ADDL. 6 P.V.THRESIA,, W/O. C.P. JOY, CHIRAYANKANDATHIL HOUSE, NEW CIVILIAN OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR – 680 001.

¶21

ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.08.2019 IN IA NO. 1/2019.

¶22

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJEEV R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY R6 BY ADV. SMT.SEEMA

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.7652/2018

: 3 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2020

¶29

The petitioner seeks to command respondents 2 to

¶30

4 to culminate the proceedings on the basis of Exts.P1 to P4, within a stipulated time.

¶31

Applications were invited for appointment as licensee to run authorised ration depot ARD No.351 of Thrissur Taluk. The petitioner as well as additional respondents 5 and 6 submitted applications to the District Supply Officer. The District Supply Officer found that additional 5^th respondent is eligible for licence.

¶32

Thereupon, the petitioner and additional 6^th respondent challenged the decision of the District Supply Officer filing statutory appeals. The District Collector, who considered the appeals, found that the additional 5^th respondent is not eligible for being appointed as ARD. However, instead of directing the District Supply Officer to

¶33

WP(C) No.7652/2018

¶34

: 4 :

¶35

consider the applications of the petitioner and the additional 6^th respondent, the District Collector directed to re-notify the grant.

¶36

The decision of the District Collector was challenged before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies disagreed with the order of the District Collector and directed that the applications of the petitioner and the additional 6^th respondent be considered for appointment as ARD. The additional 5^th respondent challenged the said order of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, before the Government. The petitioner states that the Government upheld the disqualification of the additional 5^th respondent, but directed to re-notify the ARD.

¶37

The decision of the Government was challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.28416 and 28664 of 2008 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by Ext.P1 judgment, directed that the claim of the petitioner and the additional 6^th respondent be considered. It was directed that if one of them is found eligible for licence, then the licence can be granted in

¶38

WP(C) No.7652/2018

¶39

: 5 :

¶40

favour of such person and thereupon, all proceedings for renotification should stand cancelled.

¶41

The said Ext.P1 judgment was challenged in W.A. Nos.1184 and 1202 of 2012. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal. The Division Bench held that the applications of the petitioner and the additional respondents 5 and 6 be considered along with other applications who applied pursuant to the re-notification. The Division Bench, as an interim measure, directed that the person who is holding ARD No.351 as on the date of the judgment will continue to discharge the duties of ARD, till the selection process is completed.

¶42

The petitioner would submit that in spite of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court, the selection process is not yet completed. When the petitioner approached the respondents, she was informed that the files are misplaced. Due to the failure of respondents 1 to 4, the additional 5^th respondent who is not eligible for appointment as ARD is still continuing. Therefore, the petitioner seeks that a

¶43

WP(C) No.7652/2018

¶44

: 6 :

¶45

writ of Mandamus be issued commanding respondents 2 to 4 complete the selection proceedings.

¶46

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶47

learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and counsel for additional respondents.

¶48

The ARD No.351 of the Thrissur Taluk fell vacant in the year 2012. When the vacancy was notified, only the petitioner and additional respondents 5 and 6 submitted applications. The additional 5^th respondent was initially selected by the District Supply Officer. Ultimately, the 1^st respondent-State of Kerala directed that the ARD be re-notified.

¶49

The said decision of the Government was challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.28416 and 28664 of 2008. A learned Single Judge of this Court, as per Ext.P1 judgment, directed that the applications of the petitioner and additional 6^th respondent be considered and if one of them is found eligible for grant of ARD, licence be granted to such person. Proceedings pursuant to the re-notification need to be

¶50

WP(C) No.7652/2018

¶51

: 7 :

¶52

pursued only if both the petitioner and the additional 6^th respondent are found not eligible.

¶53

The said Ext.P1 judgment of the learned Single

¶54

Judge was set aside by a Division bench of this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment in WA Nos.1184 and 1202 of 2012. The Division Bench directed to proceed with the notification of 2008 and process the applications received strictly in accordance with the contemplated procedure. Though there was a direction to complete the proceedings within eight weeks, no steps to complete the proceedings within the said period, are seen taken.

¶55

Learned Government Pleader would submit that subsequent to the judgment of this Court, the National Food Security Act came into force, laying down new provisions for grant of ARD. There was confusion among respondents 1 to 4 relating to the procedure under the National Food Security Act and also to the implications of the directions of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment promptly. There was lack of clarity in the matter, which is the reason for non-compliance of Ext.P2

¶56

WP(C) No.7652/2018

¶57

: 8 :

¶58

judgment. Learned Government Pleader would submit that respondents 1 to 4 will be in a position to comply with the directions given by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment within a period of three months. In view of the specific stand taken by the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions:-

¶59

Respondents 1 to 4 shall proceed with the notification of 2008 and process the applications received strictly in accordance with the directions given by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. Before taking a final decision in the matter, an opportunity of hearing should be extended to the petitioner and additional respondents 5 and 6. A final decision on the process of selection shall be taken within a period of three months.

¶60

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/22.12.2020

WP(C) No.7652/2018

: 9 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶68

EXT.P1:	A TRUE C BY THIS 28664 OF COURT.	OPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DELIVERED HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.28416 AND 08 DATED 02.04.2012 BY THIS HON'BLE
EXT.P2:	A TRUE THIS HON OF 2012 DIVISION	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY 'BLE COURT IN WA.NOS 1184 AND 1202 DATED 05.07.2012 OF THE HON'BLE BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P3:	A TRUE DISTRICT 10.08.20	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION TO THE SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR DATED 12.
EXT.P4:	A TRUE DISTRICT	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 26.09.2012.
EXT.P5:	A TRUE DISTRICT	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 20.03.2014.

Remya v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remya v. the State of Kerala

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

T.T.Sunny, Vs Kitco Ltd.

Aruna P. Vs the State of Kerala

Joshy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

V.Mohammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Rakhul Krishnan Vs Union of India

Rohini Vs the District Collector