Kerala High Court
Thresia P. V. @ Manju vs State Of Kerala on 29 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 8035 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THRESIA P. V. @ MANJU, AGED 58 YEARS
W/O C.P. JOY, CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE,
CIVIL LINE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
BY ADVS.
P.M.MANOJ
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
P.ANTO THOMAS
AJAYAN V.N.
AKSHARA S. MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL
SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
3 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR, DISTRICT
SUPPLY OFFICE, CIVIL LINE ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR, TALUK SUPPLY
OFFICE, PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680020
SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 8035/24
2
JUDGMENT
The limited plea of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that
the 3rd respondent - District Supply Officer, be directed to take up
Ext.P1 representation preferred by her and dispose it of, adverting to
Clause 37(5) of the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2021, without any avoidable delay.
2. In response to the afore submissions made by
Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Vidya
Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader, submitted that, if this
Court is only inclined to direct Ext.P1 representation of the
petitioner to be taken up and disposed of, there does not appear to
be any legal impediment in doing so; but prayed that this Court
may not make any affirmative declarations on her entitlement to any
relief and leave it to the competent Authority to take a final
decision as per law. She added that she is making this submission
because; she has information that the petitioner has already
approached this Court through another Writ Petition qua another
shop. She pleaded that, therefore, the competent Authority be
allowed to keep this in mind also, while Ext.P1 representation is
disposed of.
3. No doubt, when this Court directs an Authority to act, it
has to be done only as per law and not beyond.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct
the 3rd respondent - District Supply Officer, to take up Ext.P1
representation of the petitioner and to dispose of the same, after
affording her an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an
appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as
is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
I clarify that I have not entered into the merits of any of the
rival contentions, including on the maintainability of Ext.P1 before
the 3rd respondent; and that they are all left open to be considered
appropriately when the afore exercise is completed.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8035/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
APPLICATION, UNDER CLAUSE 34(2) KTPDS
ORDER, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
DATED 27.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER HAVING NUMBER
DSOTSR/290/2023-F2 DATED: 09.10.2023,
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON
09.01.2024
