Kerala High Court
Surekha Anish Kumar K vs The State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 31821 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SUREKHA ANISH KUMAR K.
SALESWOMEN,
F.P.SNO. 2367271 (A.R.D. NO. 271),
KAATTIMUKKU,
PANOOR MUNICIPALITY,
PANOOR PO,
THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670692
BY ADVS.VINOD MADHAVAN
DEVI P.
M.V.BOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES (B) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM,
VIKAS BHAVAN PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE ROAD,
THAVAKKARA, KANNUR,
PIN - 670002
W.P.(C.) No. 31821/2022 2
5 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, KANNUR,
PIN - 670002
6 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670101
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.) No. 31821/2022 3
JUDGMENT
The claim of the petitioner is that she is a saleswoman
in an authorized retail ration shop No. 262, at Panoor, with
effect from 22.08.2008. The sum and substance of the
contentions advanced in the writ petition is that a
salesman/saleswoman is protected by reservation as per
Paragraph 37(5) of the Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2021 (for short, the 'Order, 2021') for
grant of license of the Fair Price Shop. According to the
petitioner, Ext.P9 notification issued by the District Supply
Officer inviting applications from the open market cannot
be sustained since the claim of the salesman as per
Paragraph 37(5) of the Order, 2021 is not considered; and
therefore, the said notification is bad.
2. The said question was considered by this Court in
W.P.(C.) No.910/2022 and other connected cases and has
rendered a judgment on 24.02.2023 whereby similar
notifications issued by District Supply Officers of various
districts were set aside and directed to consider the claim of
salesman under Paragraph 37(5) of the Order, 2021.
3. This is a case where petitioner has not submitted
any claim before the statutory authority. However,
according to the petitioner, petitioner could not file an
application before the statutory authority since as per
Ext.P9 notification applications were invited from the open
market. I have also considered the question with respect to
the salesmen, who have not submitted applications before
the statutory authority in the aforesaid batch matter and
have permitted them to submit applications within two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The notification issued by the District Supply Officers were
all set aside and granted liberty to re-notify after
consideration of such claims under Paragraph 37(5) of the
Order, 2021.
4. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that a similar order can be passed in this writ
petition also.
5. Therefore, after having heard learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri. Vinod Madhavan and learned
Government Pleader, Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, the writ
petition is disposed of leaving open the liberty of the
petitioner to submit a suitable application in terms of
Paragraph 37(5) of the Order, 2021 within two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such
application is received, it shall be finalised by the District
Supply Officer, at the earliest, at any rate, within one
month from the date of receipt of the application from the
petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the Ext.P9 notification issued by the
District Supply Officer, Kannur is set aside. I make it clear
that if the petitioner is not making any application as
directed above, the District Supply Officer will be at liberty
to proceed, in accordance with law. However, if the
application submitted by the petitioner is considered and
finds that the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of
Paragraph 37(5) of the Order, 2021, then the District
Supply Officer shall issue a notification taking into account
the order passed in favour of the petitioner. If the
petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of Paragraph 37(5)
of the Order, 2021, the District Supply Officer will be at
liberty to re-notify the shops also taking into account the
applications if any allowed by the District Supply Officer
within his territorial limits.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
DCS/13.03.2023
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
SSLC BOOK ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS
V.P.ORIENTAL HIGH SCHOOL, CHOKLI
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
REGISTER SHOWING THE NAME OF THE WRIT
PETITIONER AS SALES WOMEN IN THE ARD
MENTIONING DATE OF CONTINUOUS
EMPLOYMENT AS 22.08.2008 UNDER COLUMN
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CS7-4753/14
DATED 05.05.2015 IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. B4-
2301/18 DATED 18.12.2018 OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARD COMMISSIONING PAY
SLIP FOR THE MONTH 01/2022 ISSUED BY
THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ARD COMMISSIONING PAY
SLIP FOR THE MONTH 08/2022 ISSUED BY
THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
REGISTER SHOWING THE NAME OF WRIT
PETITIONER AS SALES WOMEN IN THE ARD
NO. 271 MENTIONING DATE OF CONTINUOUS
EMPLOYMENT AS 11.08.2021 UNDER COLUMN
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
161/2022/F&CSD DATED 09.05.2022
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION WITH
ADVERTISEMENT NO. 21/2022/TLY DATED
27.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
06.06.2022 IN WPC 18178/2022
