Partly allowed

Fathima v. District Supply Officer

Kerala HC9 Mar 2022WP(C)/4931/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quash of condition requiring cessation of ration shop operation pending criminal trial court allowed petitioner to function shop upon executing bond for potential license action if convicted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to execute bond for potential license action upon conviction; upon issuance of bond, respondent allowed to open ration shop ARD-205.

Fathima Vs District Supply Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 4931 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 4931 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

FATHIMA AGED 82 YEARS W/O KUNHALAM, RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR, VADEKKEKAD THRISSUR, PIN-679562, RATION SHOP NO.ARD 205, VADAKKEKAD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. RAJIT LEKSHMI P. NAIR RAMAKRISHNAN M.N. MARY MANJU VINCENT

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.

¶11

2 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT680506. 3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679561.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 4931 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶18

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 4931 of 2022

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶22

“1. Call for the records leading upto Ext-P3 and quash Ext-P3 by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶23

Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing the condition in Ext-P5 requiring the petitioner to have the criminal proceedings terminated as a precondition for functioning of the rationshop ARD205 allotted to the petitioner.

¶24

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to reinstate the license of the Petitioner and permit her to open the ration shop ARD-205.

¶25

Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble court.”

¶26

The petitioner is a registered licensee for running a

¶27

ration shop in Chavakkad namely ARD 205 of Chavakkad Taluk under the Chavakkad Taluk Supply Office. The petitioner has been running the ration shop for the past several years. On 16.12.2016, when an inspection was conducted, the inspection

¶28

WP(C) NO. 4931 OF 2022 3

¶29

officer found out certain irregularities. An FIR is registered alleging the commission of the offence under Sec.3(1), (2) r/w Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 18 & 44 of the Kerala Rationing Order. The case is registered on the basis of the stock seized from an Ape auto and also based on some stock seized from some other shops. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent completed investigation and submitted a final report. Ext.P3 is the final report. Subsequently, in an adalat conducted, the petitioner was asked to pay a fine of Rs.5,061/in order to restore the license of the ARD. Ext.P5 is the notice. Based on Ext.P5, the petitioner paid the fine amount as evident by Ext.P6. But in Ext.P5, it is stated that the petitioner can restore the ARD only after the trial of criminal case is over. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions. The counsel also submitted that there is no provision in the Kerala Rationing Order restraining an ARD to function her shop when a criminal proceedings is pending trial

¶32

WP(C) NO. 4931 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

against the license. The counsel submitted that, admittedly there is no conviction and the case is pending trial. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand, submitted that Ext.P5

¶35

is an order based on a consensus arrived in an Adalat and the petitioner's shop will be restored immediately after the trial is completed.

¶36

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Kerala Rationing Order restraining an ARD to function, if criminal proceedings is pending against the license. In such situation, since the amount as directed in Ext.P5 is already paid, the respondents can allow the petitioner to function the ARD subject to the condition that if in the criminal case, she is found guilty, the respondents can take action, in accordance to law.

¶37

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

¶38

1) The petitioner will execute a bond with the 1^st respondent that if in the criminal case, she is convicted, the respondent can take action, in accordance to law.

¶39

WP(C) NO. 4931 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

Once such an affidavit is received, the 1^st respondent will pass appropriate orders, allowing the petitioner to function ARD No. 205 of Chavakkad Taluk Supply Office.

¶42

SD/-

¶43

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

SKS

¶46

WP(C) NO. 4931 OF 2022

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4931/2022

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1648/2016 REGISTERED BY THE VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION DATED 16.12.2016.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RATIONS INSPECTOR TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKAD DATED 16.02.2016.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1648/2016 OF VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION DATED 05.06.2017.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. C S 1- 2425/21 OF ADALAT ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE CHAVAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2021.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE ADALAT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2021.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF FINE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.01.2022.

Fathima v. District Supply Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fathima v. District Supply Officer

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

Majestic Constructions Vs v.P.Jafar Khan Muhammed

Perumpillil Raveendran R. Vs Union of India

N.Kanaka Bose Vs State of Kerala

T.P.Kunhambu Nair Vs Sub Collector/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Bharat Advertising and Marketing Associates (Baama), Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority (Gcda)

Mohammed Ilyas, Vs the Branch Manager