Juliet E. J vs The District Supply Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 19675 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
  FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA,
                                   1943
                       WP(C) NO. 18629 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

               JULIET E. J.
               AGED 70 YEARS
               W/O ANTONY M. L., MANTHRA HOUSE, PERUMPILLY
               NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 505.
               BY ADV S.SUDHISH KUMAR


RESPONDENT/S:

    1          THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
               COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682
               030.
    2          TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER ,
               KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI - 682 002.
    3          THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE -
               682 030.
    4          THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
               PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, UMS, VELLAYAMBALAM
               ROAD, VALAYAM - TRIVANDRUM - 595033.


               BY SRI.S.RENJITH, SPL.GP



        THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   17.09.2021,    THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.18629 of 2021              ..2..




                    W.P.(C)No.18629 of 2021
          -------------------------------------------------------


                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner was an Authorised Ration Dealer. The

licence granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the third

respondent in terms of Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order was

challenged by the petitioner in Ext.P8 appeal before the fourth

respondent. Ext.P8 appeal has now been dismissed by the

fourth respondent as per Ext.P10 order. Ext.P10 order is under

challenge in the writ petition mainly on the ground that she

was heard on Ext.P8 appeal by the Director of Civil Supplies

and not by the fourth respondent. In other words, according to

the petitioner, Ext.P10 order is one issued without affording the

petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Special Government Pleader.

3. The fact that the fourth respondent has not

afforded the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before W.P.(C) No.18629 of 2021 ..3..

passing Ext.P10 order is not disputed. It is settled that one who

hears should decide.

In the said view of the matter, the impugned order

is set aside and the fourth respondent is directed to consider

Ext.P8 appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh after affording

her an opportunity of hearing. This shall be done within three

months.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

rkj
 W.P.(C) No.18629 of 2021         ..4..




                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18629/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1             A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)

NO.9572/2017 DATED 18.04.2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.S.5-

6180/2012 DATED 08.05.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2017 BEARING NO.CS-5-6180/2012 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.35589/2017(W) DATED 29.11.2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.S. 5-

6180/2012 DATED 23.02.2018 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 7294/2018 (J) DATED 28.01.2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCEKM/2290/2020/S7 DATED 20.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO. OF 2020 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 08.03.2021 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.(C.S.)A8-

688/2020 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2021.