Kerala High Court
K.R. Keralaudayan vs Commissioner Of Civil Supplies Palayam on 20 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 41239 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
K.R. KERALAUDAYAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.RAGHAVAN, JYOTHI VIHAR, ALUVILA, THALAYAL,
BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV R.GOPAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
3 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 AJI KUMAR
NAINA KONATHU MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, THALAYAL,
PERUMPAZHITHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA - 695 121.
Sri. Binoy Davis, G. P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEATD ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.41239 OF 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The dispute in the present Writ Petition shows an
allotment of a Ration Shop - ARD No.635 at Ward No.5,
Alluvilla at Balaramapuram Panchayat from 2012 to 2016 -17.
The 3rd respondent invited an application for issuance of
licence as per Ext.P1 dated 27.01.2003.
2. The petitioner had applied for the same. However,
the 4th respondent was allotted the shop. The petitioner filed
an appeal before the 2nd respondent which, was dismissed as
per order dated 17.07.2003, as evident from Ext.P7. The
petitioner also filed a Revision Petition, which was also
dismissed. Challenging Exts.P7and P8 orders, the petitioner
has approached this Court in W.P(C) No. 24531/2004. By
Ext.P9 judgment, order of the 1st respondent was set aside
and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the same.
After reconsideration of the claim, in terms with judgment in
W.P(C) No. 24531/2004, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P10
order in favour of the petitioner and ordering that the Ration
Shop - ARD No.635 at Ward No.5, Alluvilla at Balaramapuram
WP(C) NO.41239 OF 2018
Panchayat be restored to him. The said order was challenged
by the 4th respondent before this Court in W.P.(C) No.
10873/2012. By judgment dated 13.11.2017, this Court set
aside the said order and the matter was directed to be
reconsidered after hearing both parties. It was ordered that
the continuation of ARD by the 6th respondent who is the
petitioner herein would be subject to the further order to be
passed by the Commissioner. In compliance with the said
judgment, the Civil Supplies Commissioner had passed
Ext.P12 order. It is found in Ext.P12 order that the 4 th
respondent was not entitled to the allotment of the shop.
However, it was also found that the perpetration was not
eligible for allotment of the said shop and accordingly re-
notification of the shop was ordered.
3. The Writ Petition was admitted to file and an
interim order was passed by this Court on 18.12.2018, by
which the further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 has been
kept in abeyance.
4. I have heard Sri.R.Gopan - learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
WP(C) NO.41239 OF 2018
5. Sri.R.Gopan - learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contends that in terms of the finding in Ext.P10,
order passed by the 1st respondent in Ext.P12 cannot be
sustained. With specific reference to the findings of the
Commissioner of Civil Supplies in Ext.P10, the learned counsel
for the petitioner would contend that based on certain
documentary evidence, he had concluded that the petitioner
was eligible for allotment of the shop and on contrary the 4 th
respondent was not. He further pointed out that, the District
Collector vide his report dated 29.03.2012 has unequivocally
stated that the 4th respondent is a resident of Neyyattinkara
Municipality and therefore, he is not eligible for allotment in
question and based on which the Commissioner had directed
the shop to be restored to the petitioner.
6. When the findings rendered in Ext.P10 is
considered along with the findings of the Civil Supplies
Commissioner in Ext.P12, necessarily there is a contradiction
in so far as the report of the District Collector and the other
Authorities have not been taken into consideration. In other
words, the Authorities has not based its findings on cogent
evidence on record. To that extent, necessarily the petitioner
WP(C) NO.41239 OF 2018
is prejudiced. Therefore, this Court cannot sustain the findings
in Ext.P12 and necessarily those findings will have to be
vacated.
7. However, even if this Court is inclined to vacate the
findings in Ext.P12 and set aside the same, what relief the
petitioner is entitled to will have to be considered. It is
pertinent to note that, because of the fact that interim order
was granted by this Court, the customers who are allotted
under Shop ARD No. 635 at Aluvilla in Ward No.5 of
Balaramapuram Panchayat has been alloted under other
shops because of the necessity. Therefore, at any rate,
respondents 1 to 3 will have to re-notify the selection for
Shop ARD No. 635 at Aluvilla in Ward No.5 of Balaramapuram
Panchayat.
In the afore circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that, the findings in Ext.P12 cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P12 is set aside. The respondents
1 to 3 is free to notify the selection for the ARD No. 635 at
Aluvilla in Ward No.5 of Balaramapuram Panchayat. The
petitioner is also entitled to participate in such a selection
process. He is also at liberty to produce such other documents
WP(C) NO.41239 OF 2018
as evidence or prove that he is a resident of the said locality.
He is also at further liberty to prove his claim based on the
findings recorded in Ext.P10. Once the re-notification is done
and the selection process has commenced, the competent
among the respondents will process the claim in accordance
with law and take appropriate decision in this regard.
Needful in this regard shall be done at any rate within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-EASWARAN.S
JUDGE
lsn
WP(C) NO.41239 OF 2018
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41239/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27/1/2003 AND LOCATION SKETCH.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RATION CARD OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF HE SOLVENCY CERTIFICATE
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25/1/2003.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL
CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED
23/4/2012.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 16/12/2002.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/4/2003
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/7/2003
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/5/2004
PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19/1/2004 IN WP(C) NO.24531/2004 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/4/2012
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13/11/2017 IN WP(C) NO.10873/2012 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/5/2018
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH
COVERING LETTER.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN
