Kerala High Court
P.V.Velayudhan Nair vs The District Supply Officer on 26 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 5976 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
P.V.VELAYUDHAN NAIR
MANKERI, IRIMBILIYAM PANCHAYATH,
KUTTIPPURAM FIRKA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
MALAPPURAM - 676505
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
MALAPPURAM- 676505
3 THE CIMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FOOD DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SR. GP - B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON 26.8.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 5976 of 2012
2
MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,J
------------------------
WP(C).No. 5976 of 2012
------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a licensee of an authorised retail depot
granted under the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order. He was
served with a memo of charges, Ext.P1 alleging irregularities which
was detected on an inspection conducted on 21.07.2007. The
petitioner gave a reply on 27.10.2007, Ext.P2. Not satisfied with the
reply, the licence was cancelled by the first respondent. The
petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent,
District Collector, which was rejected as per Ext.P4. An appeal, to
the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Thiruvananthapuram also met
with the same fate by Ext.P5 order that was confirmed finally by the
Government by Ext.P9 order. These orders are sought to be quashed,
basically on the grounds that the allegation of difference in stocks
was made without any physical weighment. The further allegations,
according to the petitioner are not serious enough to result in a
cancellation of licence.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4 th
respondent, Secretary to Government, Food Department specifically
WP(C).No. 5976 of 2012
alleging that there were complaints about the functioning of the
ration depot which led to the vigilance wing of the office of the
Commissioner of the Civil Supplies inspecting the depot on 21.7.2007
which found that there were violation of the provisions of the Kerala
Rationing Order, 1966 and Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968 as
well as the violation of the terms of the agreement executed by the
dealer. It was based on the report of the vigilance officer that the
first respondent suspended the licence by proceedings dated
21.08.2007.
3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the variation found in the stock of APL rice and BPL rice was due
to them being stacked together and that the non-maintainability of
the registers was due to the inexperience of the salesman. The other
charges were non lifting of the APL wheat within the time prescribed
and that no card register or kerosene permit register maintained at
the time of inspection, irregularities and non tallying of the daily bill
books, the sale of quantity of 302 kg BPL rice, 107 kg BPL wheat, 270
kg AAY rice, 748 kg APL rice, 129 kg APL wheat, 44 kg sugar, 183
litres kerosene and 10 kg ANP rice were found to be misappropriated
by forging the accounts. To none of these charges, the reply given by
the petitioner was acceptable. It was also pointed out that the
petitioner's licence was suspended on a earlier occasion in the year
2006 and it was restored in the year 2007 only on account of
humanitarian consideration and on account of the fact that the
WP(C).No. 5976 of 2012
petitioner is an old aged ex-serviceman. The value of the
misappropriated ration articles was recovered from him and the
security deposit was forfeited.
4. The counter affidavit goes on to state that the answers
given by the dealer to the show cause notice was hardly acceptable
and showed the manner in which the retail shop was run. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the grounds he raised
were properly considered by the authorities and a re-look is
necessary. He also cites the judgment in Sarojini v. District
Collector, Thiruvananthapuram (1999 KHC 3) for the proposition
that a difference in the stock can be ascertained only after physical
weighment and the finding in that regard based on the registers and
not by the physical weighment cannot be accepted. It is to be
straight away noticed that the difference in the stocks is just one of
the several irregularities noted in the show cause notice and thus, the
said argument cannot be accepted to vary the order of cancellation of
licence imposed by the authorities. This Court in a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot consider the factual
disputes sought to be raised now and which were rejected by the
authorities concerned. There is no material on record to show that
the impugned orders suffer from non-consideration of any evidence
or that the findings are such that it was incapable of being arrived at
in the circumstances of the case. It is also to be noted that there was
no interim order granted in the writ petition and the ARD is currently
WP(C).No. 5976 of 2012
being run by some other person since 2012. In view of the serious
irregularities raised against the petitioner and also taking into
account the fact that the petitioner was restored with the licence on
an earlier occasion on humanitarian grounds and notwithstanding the
same, the petitioner has not taken care to adhere to the requirements
of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, Kerala Kerosene Control Order,
1968 or to the terms of the agreement executed. In such
circumstances, the impugned orders are only to be upheld.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,JUDGE
dlk 25.8.2022
WP(C).No. 5976 of 2012
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5976/2012
PETITIONER's EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.10.2007.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2008.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.02.2012 BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
