Kerala High Court
K.Pameela vs The Controller Of Rationing on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17223 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
K.PAMEELA
W/O. LATE A. BALAGOPAL, AGED 62 YEARS,
AMBAL NIVAS, PALACE CORNER,
KOLLENGODE P.O, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.
SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SRI.VISHNU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CONTROLLER OF RATIONING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
2 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101.
4 ADDL.4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 29.10.2021 IN W.P.(C)NO.17223 OF 2013)
SMT.RASHMI.K.M, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.17223 of 2013
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the wife of late
Sri.A.Balagopal, who was the authorised wholesale
Ration Distributor with respect of AWD II and III
in Mannarkkad Taluk. The dealership was granted in
favour of her husband as per licence No.16/83-84
and Ext.P1 is the licence. The licence was renewed
regularly till the death of A.Balagopal on
8.6.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that in
the year 2000, there was hike in the price of
ration articles, such as rice and wheat. It is the
further case of the petitioner that the retail
distributors and card holders preferred to purchase
the articles from the open market instead of
approaching the ration dealers. In that
contingency, it is the specific case of the
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
petitioner that the husband of the petitioner after
getting permission from the then Taluk Supply
Officer, sold the ration articles earmarked to the
APL(Above Poverty Line) Scheme to the BPL(Below
Poverty Line) Scheme. According to the petitioner,
the difference between the price of the rice
articles between APL Scheme and BPL Scheme per
quintal was about Rs.380/-. The price at the APL
level was Rs.380/- higher than the BPL price. It
is submitted in the writ petition that, due to the
above shifting, the petitioner's husband was
entitled to get an adjustment of Rs.3,41,061.90.
The petitioner's husband died on 8.6.2001. On the
same date, when the Taluk spply officer visited the
Ration shop, in the visit book, the then Taluk
Supply Officer had made the endorsement of the
above shifting that was done between the BPL and
APL Scheme. Ext.P2 is the relevant page of the
visit book pertaining to the AWD shop. It is
submitted by the petitioner that, when the
petitioner's husband was alive, ie., on 14.11.2000
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
itself, he had requested the 1st respondent by
submitting a representation for issuing an order
for transferring the above quantities of articles
which were held in the godown for shifting it from
APL to BPL. Ext.P3 is the representation. It is
the further case of the petitioner that, as per
letter dated 29.7.2005, the then Supply Officer,
Mannarkkad, showing the details of the shifting of
articles and recommended to give deduction amount
of Rs.3,41,117/- in favour of the petitioner.
After adjusting this amount, according to the
petitioner, the actual amount due to be collected
from the petitioner was also requested to be
intimated to the Taluk Supply Officer in that
letter. Ext.P4 is the letter. It is also the case
of the petitioner that, as per letter dated
16.3.2006 (Ext.P5), the Taluk Supply Officer had
addressed the District Supply Officer recommending
the adjustment of Rs.3,41,117/- from the total
amount which has to be remitted by him towards the
stock rice. Ext.P6 is the letter. It is the
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
further case of the petitioner that the successor
of the earlier Taluk Supply Officer without
following the earlier proceedings, after referring
a letter of the Civil Supplies Director dated
30.5.2012, intimated that the petitioner is not
entitled to get the adjustment recommended by the
earlier Taluk Supply Officer, since shifting was
done without getting the prior permission from the
Taluk Supply Officer. Hence, the petitioner was
directed to remit Rs.3,41,117/- and also cost of
Rs.4,802/- decreed in a suit which was instituted
by the petitioner claiming differential cost of
rice and wheat filed before the Sub court. That
cost was also directed to be paid along with the
amount of Rs.3,41,117/- as per Ext.P7. On receipt
of Ext.P7, the petitioner submitted a
representation before the Minister of Food and
Civil Supplies as evident by Ext.P8 representation.
Subsequently, Ext.P9 revenue recovery proceedings
were initiated. In such circumstances, this writ
petition is filed with following prayers.
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
"(i) call for the records leading to
Exhibit P7 and P9 and issue a writ of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing the same,
(ii) pass an order declaring that the
petitioner is not bound to make any payment as
claimed in Exhibits P7 and P9,
(iii) pass such other appropriate order or
direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
casae, and
(iv) award costs."
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, Adv.Sumathi Dandapani as instructed by
Adv.Vishnu and the learned Government Pleader.
3. When this writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned senior counsel submitted
that the amount covered by Ext.R2(a) judgment and
decree is already paid by the petitioner to the
respondents on 27.09.2013. The learned Government
Pleader also conceded that, if that is the case
what remains is only the interest and cost portion.
It is an admitted fact that the husband of the
petitioner was conducting the ARD. It is the
definite case of the petitioner that the husband of
the petitioner approached the authorities for
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
getting permission to sell the rice and wheat from
APL to BPL. I perused Exts.P4, P5 and P6, in which
it is clear that the Taluk Supply Officer and other
officials recommended to accept the request of the
husband of the petitioner to adjust the amount from
the amount payable by the petitioner's husband. In
such circumstances, according to me, the direction
to pay interest to the amount which already paid
will be an injustice to the wife of the deceased
A.Balagopal. Admittedly there is no
misappropriation or fraud alleged. The ration
article supplied for the distribution to APL was
sold to BPL card holders and requested for
approval. The same was recommended as per Exts.P4,
P5 and P6. But subsequently when approval was not
given, the amount was paid. Hence mulcting
interest in such case, that also to the widow of
the former ARD will be an injustice. According to
me, this is a matter to be looked into by the
additional 4th respondent. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the revenue recovery
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
proceedings initiated against the petitioner can be
quashed and the question of payment of interest by
the petitioner can be decided by the Government
afresh. As I observed earlier, the Government
should take this matter as a special case and will
do the needful in accordance to law to see that the
payment of interest is avoided in this particular
case.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the
following manner.
i) Exts.P7 and P9 are quashed.
ii) The additional 4th respondent is
directed to consider the waiver of payment of
interest by the petitioner in the light of the fact
that the admitted amount is already paid in the
year 2013 and the petitioner is the wife of the
deceased ARD.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17223/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF LICENCE NUMBER 16/83-
84,MANNARKKAD UNDER KERALA FOODG RAINS
DEALERS' LICENSING ORDER, 1967, ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOEN'S
HUSBAND , A. BALAGOPAL
EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE VISIT
BOOK PERTAINING TO THE AUTHORISED
WHOLSALE DEPOT SHOP DONE 8/6/2001
REFEREED TO IN THE WIRT PETITION
EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRENETATION DTD
14/11/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S
HUSBAND BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT
EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. D 259/04 DTD
29/7/2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
DIST SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD
EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. D 264/05 DTD
16/3/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
DIST SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD
EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DTD 10/8/2009 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO SHRI SUKUMARAN,
PALAKKAD
EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NONTICE NO.D 259/2005
DTD 11/9/2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
EXT.P8 PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD
24/9/2012 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXT.P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO
2013/38219/9 DTD 31/5/2013 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
WP(C) NO.17223/2013
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
31.03.2005
ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
18.06.2007
ANNEXURE R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.05.2010
ANNEXURE R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.05.2010
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
