Kerala High Court
Sini S vs The District Supply Officer on 7 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4750 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SINI S., AGED 40 YEARS
D/O THE LATE MANI (DECEASED LICENSEE OF FPS
NO.1946017), SUJITH NIVAS, MUTHUKULAM, NOORANI P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
VINOD MADHAVAN
M.V.BOSE
BIJU VARGHESE ERUMALA
SANIYA C.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4750 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Sri.Vinod Madhavan - learned counsel for the petitioner,
vehemently argued that the order impugned, namely Ext.P8,
is inherently wrong and issued without proper application of
mind; and that this is because, the Authority who issued the
said order, namely the Taluk Supply Officer, is only following
the District Supply Officer, who had apparently indited his
opinion in his letter dated 06.10.2023, which has been
referred to in the said order. He argued that the procedures
adopted by the respondents are, therefore, impermissible and
illegal; and hence that Ext.P8 is liable to be set aside. He
thus prayed that the District Supply Officer, who is the
competent Authority to take a final decision on his client's
application for allotment of the Ration Shop, consequent to
that of her father - who was the original licensee, be directed
to take up the same and dispose it of after hearing her
because, she will be able to convince him that she is residing
in the relevant District, as per the applicable Circulars and
Rules.
2. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Government
WP(C) NO. 4750 OF 2024
Pleader, in response, submitted that if the petitioner only
requires reconsideration of her application by the District
Supply Officer, he will not stand in the way of appropriate
orders being issued; however, praying that this Court may
not make any affirmative declarations and leave it to the said
Authority to take an apposite decision, as per law. He added
that, as evident from Ext.P8, the Taluk Supply Officer has
only gone by the letter of the District Supply Officer, to the
effect that the petitioner is not residing in the relevant
District.
3. When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions,
there is force in the contentions impelled by Sri.Vinod
Madhavan because, normally, an application of a person can
be rejected only after affording him or her an opportunity of
being heard.
4. In the case at hand, it appears that Ext.P8 was issued
by the Taluk Supply Officer based on some letter, which he
refers to having been issued by the District Supply Officer.
Whether the latter had recommended the rejection of the
petitioner's application, or whether his letter dealt with any
other issue, are not matters which are available to this Court
WP(C) NO. 4750 OF 2024
at the moment; and, in any event, I do not think that it is
necessary for me to consider the same on its merits in view of
the limited relief that I am proposing to grant to the
petitioner.
5. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is stated to
be the legal heir of the deceased licencee of the Authorised
Retailer Depot (ARD) in question, I am of the view that her
application must be considered by the competent Authority,
as per the established procedure.
6. In the afore circumstances, acceding to the
suggestion of the learned Government Pleader, I allow this
writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential
direction to the District Supply Officer to hear the petitioner,
after favouring her with any report that may be relied upon
by the said officer, and thus take a final decision on her
application, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is
completed and the resultant order communicated to the
WP(C) NO. 4750 OF 2024
petitioner, the allotment of the ARD in question shall stand
deferred.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 4750 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4750/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVID-19 DEATH
DECLARATION DOCUMENT DATED 24/07/2021
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE
(HEALTH) PALAKKAD
Exhibit P 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
DATED 27/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE PALAKKAD
MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL
CERTIFICATE NO.R3.23006/2023 DATED
27/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE PALAKKAD
MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
01/11/2022 ISSUED BY PRABHA MOHANAN,
COUNCILOR, WARD 38, KAIKUTHUPRAMBU,
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAAR NO. 9208
2388 4252 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
NO.TLKPKD/8059/2021-C2 DATED 22/07/2022
ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR PALAKKAD
Exhibit P 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED
27/09/2022 EXECUTED BY YASODHA, SMITHA,
SUJITH KUMAR AND SREEJA (THE OTHER
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED MANI)
Exhibit P 8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
TSOPKD/423/2022-B2, DATED 16/10/2023,
ISSUED BY THE TSO, PALAKKAD
