Allowed

Prasannan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Feb 2024WP(C)/338/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a non-speaking rejection of an application for an Authorised Retail Depot. It held that the notice lacked tenable explanation and directed the authorities to reconsider the case with a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 notice set aside to the extent it operates against the petitioner; directed District Supply Officer to hear petitioner again and pass a fresh order within one month.

Prasannan Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 338 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

PRASANNAN AGED 61 YEARS, S/O CHELLAPPAN VAYALIL VEEDU, PUTHUKARI, CHIRAYINKEEZHU PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695304 BY ADVS. P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) THANIMA S.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES(B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶9

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶10

3 CITY RATIONING OFFICER (SOUTH) EX-MAYOR R. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR RD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695035

¶11

4 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043

¶12

5 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, PIN - 695101

¶13

6 ADDL.R6 KAVITHA @ KARTHIKA, KESAVA MANDIRAM, KADAKOM.P.O. CHIRAYINKEEZHU NOW RESIDING AT VAYALIL VEEDU, KADAKOM .P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695304. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.01.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 OF WP(C)338/2023) BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

¶14

W.P.(C).No. 338 of 2023

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).No. 338 of 2023

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 notice of the District Supply Officer, whereby, his application for allotment of an Authorised Retail Depot has been rejected, along with that of the 6^th respondent, on the ground that both parties have not identified buildings at the designated spot.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the p etitioner – Sri.P.Anoop, vehemently argued that, what is stated in Ext.P3 qua his client is factually incorrect because, he had identified a building at the same spot as is notified and stipulated. He submitted that, however, instead of considering this in its proper perspective, Ext.P3 has been issued in a rather mechanical fashion; and asserts that this was only to help the 6^th respondent, who was unable to identify any such property. He thus prayed that, Ext.P3 be set aside and the Authorities be directed to allot the shop in question to his client.

¶22

Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George – learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P3 and further explained through the statement filed in this case, the building identified by the petitioner is not in the place that has been stipulated. He added that a report of the Taluk Supply Officer, Chirayinkeezhu, had been called for before Ext.P3 notice had been issued; and that it was found that neither is the building identified

¶23

W.P.(C).No. 338 of 2023

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

by the petitioner in the area in question, nor is it suitable for running a ration shop; and that this is more so because, there are four other ration shops operating in the said area, thus disabling the commencement of a new ration shop there. He argued that, therefore, both parties were given an opportunity of finding a suitable place, but that they were unable to do so, thus leading to Ext.P3 being issued.

¶26

Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on the afore lines and read the averments in the Statement filed by him on behalf of the official respondents, the fact remains that Ext.P3 does not cite any reason why the application of the petitioner has been rejected, except saying that the building identified by him is not in the area which was stipulated. Pertinently, the said notice does not say that the building identified by the petitioner is unsuitable, though such a contention is now sought to be impelled through the Statement filed by the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

It is, therefore obvious that Ext.P3 is not a speaking order, and it merely informs the petitioner of the decision of the District Supply Officer, without supporting it by tenable explanation.

¶28

I am, therefore of the firm view that the petitioner's case will have to be reconsidered by the District Supply Officer appropriately; for which, certainly he will have to be given a fresh

¶29

W.P.(C).No. 338 of 2023

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

opportunity of being heard.

¶32

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P3, to the extent to which it operates against the petitioner; with a consequential direction to the District Supply Officer to hear him again and advert to his specific contentions; thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

¶33

Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, copy of any order/proceeding relied upon by the District Supply Officer shall also be made available to the petitioner.

¶34

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶35

anm

¶36

W.P.(C).No. 338 of 2023

¶37

: 6 :

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 338/2023

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD 20.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 12.12.2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 17.12.2022 FORWARDED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

Prasannan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasannan 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

Geeth C.B Vs Rajasree Menon

Sandhya K.S Vs v. Chelsa Sini

The Merchants Association Cherthala Vs State of Kerala

Shaji v Vs Remla Beevi .I

Pius @ Pius Vadakkekunnel Paul Vs Sri. Vishnu Raj

M/S Saaj Constructions Vs Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Ltd.