Allowed

Anaz Babu v. the District Supply Officer

Kerala HC6 Aug 2021WP(C)/13305/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the first respondent's order cancelling the petitioner's ration distributorship. It directed the respondent to reconsider the matter and afford an opportunity of hearing through electronic mode within a week, adhering to a prior court direction.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 order quashed; first respondent directed to comply with previous direction for electronic hearing within one week.

Anaz Babu Vs the District Supply Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13305 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ANAZ BABU AGED 46 YEARS S/O. BEERAVU, VELUTHAKADAVUKARAN HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBU DESOM, KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN680731, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERFATHIMABEEVI, W/O. BEERAVU, AGED 75 YEARS, VELUTHAKADAVUKARAN HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBU DESOM, KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE, MALA, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 731

¶7

BY ADVS. S.SAJU

¶8

A.V.SAJAN NEELANJANA NAIR POOJA SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 003

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003

¶12

3 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,

¶13

¶14

W.P.(C) No. 13305 of 2021

¶15

MUNICIPAL JUBILEE BUILDING, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 307

¶16

4 COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶17

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶18

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 13305 of 2021

¶22

W.P.(C) No.13305 of 2021

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Petitioner was an Authorised Retail Distributor of

¶25

rationed articles under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. The distributorship granted to the petitioner was suspended by the third respondent on 08.10.2013, invoking the power under clause 45(8) of the Rationing Order. Later, the distributorship was cancelled by the first respondent. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the first respondent in this connection before this Court in W.P.(C) No.22058 of 2020. In terms of Ext.P6 judgment, this court set aside the order and directed the first respondent to reconsider the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing through electronic mode. Pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, the first

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 13305 of 2021

¶28

respondent has issued Ext.P9 order, in terms of which the distributorship of the petitioner was again cancelled. Ext.P9 is under challenge in the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing through electronic mode as directed in Ext.P6 judgment and Ext.P9 order is also one passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶30

It is seen that despite the direction issued by this court in Ext.P6 judgment that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing through electronic mode before passing orders as directed therein, a notice was issued by the first respondent pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment directing the petitioner to appear in person. It is also seen that the petitioner was out of India at the relevant time and he could not therefore

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 13305 of 2021 5

¶32

appear before the first respondent pursuant to the notice. Ext.P9 order indicates that the mother of the petitioner appeared before the first respondent initially on behalf of the petitioner and as the mother of the petitioner was not heard by the first respondent in the matter, the brother of the petitioner appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The brother of the petitioner was also not heard by the first respondent in the matter. Ext.P9 order indicates that the said order has been issued taking the view that a person who is not in a position

¶33

even to appear before the first respondent cannot be granted the distributorship.

¶34

The view taken by the first respondent that a person who is not in a position to appear before the first respondent cannot be granted a distributorship cannot be accepted. As noted, it is a case where the distributorship was initially suspended and later cancelled. One cannot be blamed

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 13305 of 2021 6

¶36

for having taken up other avocations for livelihood while pursuing a proceedings initiated by him for restoration of the distributorship. It appears that it is having taken note of the fact that the petitioner has taken up some avocation out of India, this Court has directed the first respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing through electronic mode. The first respondent in the circumstances, ought not have directed the physical appearance of the petitioner.

¶37

Be that as it may, on a query from the Court at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is very much in India now. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the first respondent.

¶38

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to comply with the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment afresh after

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 13305 of 2021

¶41

affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. This shall be done within a week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment for compliance before the first respondent.

¶42

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶43

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 13305 of 2021

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13305/2021

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. F24180/08 DATED 29.09.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR, DATED 29.09.2008.

¶49

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT AS AUTHORISED RETAIL DISTRIBUTOR REF. NO. F24180/08 DATED 29.09.2008.

¶50

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER.

¶51

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶52

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F56758/13/GSO DATED 22.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR.

¶53

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.C NO. 22058/2020 DATD 14.12.2020.

¶54

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22.01.2021.

¶55

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 29.01.2021.

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 13305 of 2021

¶58

Exhibit P9

¶59

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBERED F56758/13/GSO PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.03.2021.

Anaz Babu v. the District Supply Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anaz Babu v. the District Supply Officer

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

Jeevan Thomas, Vs State of Kerala

Saniya Shanavas Vs the Secretary

K. Krishnan, Vs State of Kerala

Aapt Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Maria Granites Vs Asha C.Abraham

E.v.Raju Vs T.K.Jose