Disposed

Rahmath Potachola v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2021WP(C)/15688/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking appointment as Authorized Rationing Retail Distributor. The court quashed the quashing prayer and directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application within six weeks after receiving a representation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to file a representation; the second respondent must consider it and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, granting an opportunity of hearing.

Rahmath Potachola Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15688 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAHMATH POTTACHOLA' W/O. SHAJAHAN, THOOMBATH HOUSE, AZAD NAGAR, PARAPPUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 503 BY ADVS. P.T.SHEEJISH SRI. HARIKIRAN M. SMT.P.SREELAKSHMI SMT.JASHITHA VIJAYAN SRI.A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917) SMT.STEPHY GRACE RAJ

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 001 2 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-676 505 3 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TIRURANGADI, TIRURANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306 SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO.15688/2020

¶12

¶13

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶14

W.P.(C)No.15688 of 2020

¶15

Dated this the 17^th day of November 2021

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The above writ petition is filed with

¶18

following prayers:

¶19

“i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P7 and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order to quash the further proceedings of Exhibit P7, in the interest of justice.

¶20

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to immediately consider Exhibit P2 application of the Petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

iii) Such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.”

¶22

2. The petitioner applied for the

¶23

appointment as Authorized Rationing Retail Distributor as per Ext.P1 notification. While so, there was a bye-election in the Vengara

¶24

constituency and there was some delay in considering the application. Aggrieved by the

¶25

¶26

WP(C) NO.15688/2020

¶27

inaction on the part of the authorities, the petitioner submitted a representation before the authorities concerned. Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the 1^st respondent for further steps. Subsequently, when the petitioner obtained certain information as per Ext.P6, she came to know that her application was kept in abeyance pursuant to Ext.P7 order of the 2^nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the authority concerned has not communicated Ext.P7 order to the petitioner. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P7 and to consider Ext.P2 within a time frame.

¶28

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶30

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition.

¶31

The counsel submitted that there is some change after Ext.P7 order and therefore, there may be a direction to consider Ext.P2 application.

¶32

WP(C) NO.15688/2020

¶33

¶34

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, in the light of Ext.P7, nothing can be done and Ext.P7 is passed based on the directions from the Central Government.

¶35

6. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. Admittedly, Ext.P1 notification was issued on 7.10.2016. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application based on Ext.P1 notification. Even now Ext.P2 application is not considered because of Ext.P7. The petitioner says that there is some relaxation after Ext.P7 order. According to me, this is a matter to be looked in to by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner can submit a representation before the 2^nd respondent for an early consideration of Ext.P2 application and the 2^nd respondent will pass appropriate orders in it in accordance to law after considering all the relevant notification and the subsequent notification, if any, after Ext.P7.

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO.15688/2020

¶38

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶39

(i) The petitioner is free to file a representation before the 2^nd respondent narrating her grievances within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

(ii) Once such a representation is received, the 2^nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six

¶41

weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶42

iii) Before passing final orders, the 2^nd respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.15688/2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15688/2020

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION THE NOTIFICATION NO.CS 10-5915/16 DATED 07.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.11.2016
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 31.10.2016
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT DATED 15.12.2018
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FILED BY PETITIONER DATED 29.06.2020
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXHIBIT P5 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07.07.2020
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S ORDER NO(CS) A9-6453/2016 DATED 09.11.2017

¶51

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

PA TO JUDGE

Rahmath Potachola v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahmath Potachola 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

K.M. Rafeeque Vs the Secretary

M/S Eminent Security Vs Govt.of India & Another

K.v.Achuthan Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Thankappan Vs Dist. Collector & Ors.

The Kerala Private Iti Managers Association Vs Director General of Training