Disposed

Annamma Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2022WP(C)/31737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's RTI appeal and licensing dispute involving a Food and Civil Supplies matter. The court disposed of the petition by directing the District Collector to consider the appeal with a hearing and issue an order within two months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the 3rd Respondent to consider the appeal, affording a hearing to parties, and pass an appropriate order within two months.

Annamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 31737 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ANNAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.JOSEPH, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU, ARD NO.30
(OLD NO.320), ANGADIKADAVU (PO), IRITTY,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 706.

¶7

BY ADV RESHMA E.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶10

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670 002.

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 002.

¶13

5 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 703.

¶14

6 THE RATIONING OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RATIONING OFFICER, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 703.

¶15

7 GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, MUTHUMAKKAL HOUSE, P.P.NO.110A, WARD NO.7, KALLADI, THONDIYIL (PO), PERAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 703.

¶16

W.P.(C). 31737/2022

¶17

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SMT. AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP

¶20

HIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C). 31737/2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 14th day of October, 2022

¶25

The petitioner applied for licence to conduct ARD No. 30 in Ward No.1 of Ayyankunnu Grama Panchayath, Iritty Taluk. The 7^th respondent also applied for licence for the same shop. The parties were heard in Adalat and the 7^th respondent's claim allowed.

¶26

The petitioner contends that the 7^th respondent is not eligible for appointment as permanent licensee of ARD No. 30 of Ward No.1 of Ayyankunnu Grama Panchayat since he is not residing within Iritty Taluk. It is alleged that the 7^th respondent had submitted forged documents in support of his claim. It is vehemently contended that the licence granted to the 7th respondent is liable to be cancelled forthwith since his claim is founded on a forged document. Pointing out these aspects, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P12 appeal before the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

W.P.(C). 31737/2022

¶28

¶29

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's claim was rejected on finding that her husband is the licensee of another Fair Price Shop, ARD No. 29 in Iritty Taluk. It is pointed out that as per Clause 29(3) of the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2021, Fair Price Shop licence shall not be granted to a person, if any member of the family of the applicant is holding a license for running a Fair Price Shop within the Taluk.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 29(3) of the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2021 has no application in the instant case, since the petitioner had applied for licence at a time when the Kerala Rationing Order was in force.

¶31

In so far as the petitioner has preferred Ext. P12 appeal, I am not delving into the issues involved, since it is for the appellate authority to take the decision.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext. P12 and pass appropriate

¶33

W.P.(C). 31737/2022

¶34

¶35

orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 7^th respondent. The order as directed above, shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any

¶36

rate, within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶38

sb

¶39

W.P.(C). 31737/2022

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31737/2022

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS7-332/2014,` `DATED 16/06/2022, BY 4TH RESPONDENT DISTRICT` `SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR.`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS4-1254/2016` `DATED 18/07/2022 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TALUK` `SUPPLY OFFICER, IRITTY.`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED` `21/06/2022 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DISTRICT` `SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/06/2022` `TO THE SECRETARY, AYYANKUNNU GRAMA` `PANCHAYATH.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BY WARD MEMBER` `7, PERAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED` `16/05/2022.`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BY` `SECRETARY, PERAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED` `05/07/2022.`
`Exhibit P6A`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED` `02/07/2022 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AND` `THE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS AUTHORISED` `DISTRIBUTOR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH` `OTHER DOCUMENT OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO` `INFORMATION.`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST TOWARDS THE` `LOCAL BODY G13081-PERAVOOR.`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST OF PERAVOOR` `CONSTITUENCY.`
`Exhibit P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF ELECTION ID CARD OF THE` `PETITIONER ISSUED BY ELECTION COMMISSION OF` `INDIA.`

¶44

W.P.(C). 31737/2022

¶45

¶46

Exhibit P10THE TRUE COPY OF SOLVENCY CERTIFICATE DATED
30/12/2017.
Exhibit P11THE TRUE COPY OF DECLARATION BY THE OWNER OF
THE BUILDING AP.I.4222.
Exhibit P12THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER K T P D S (C)
ORDER, 2021 DATED 08/07/2022.

Annamma Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamma Joseph 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

T.A. Xavier Vs Nishant Kavungaparambil

The Executive Engineer,Lsgd Division ,Kakkanad Ernakulam Vs C v Radhakrishnan, S/O Viswanatha Pai Thuruthelveli,Maruthorvattom P O ,Cherthala

Hassan N.S Vs Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady

Sijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Thomson Thomas Vs District Collector

Pranav K.P. Vs K.V. Pushpa (Pen 288558)