Sathy P.S vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 12368 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sathy P.S vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
      MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 30566 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

          SATHY P.S, AGED 45 YEARS,
          D/O. SHIVARAJAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
          UNNICHANTHAM, PALEMADU PO, NILAMBUR TALUK,
          MALAPPURAM
          BY ADV SMT.MIJI JOHN


RESPONDENT/S:

1         STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
2         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
          MALAPPURAM - 676 505
3         THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE,
          COLLECTORATE BUILDING, MALAPPURAM - 676 505
4         TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, NEAR FEDERAL
          BANK, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM - 676 505
5         CHERIYAN J. JOHN, S/O. JOHN, THOPPIL HOUSE,
           ARANADAMPADAM VILLAGE,
          EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 616



          SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 30566 OF 2016                    2



                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved

by the fact that the application preferred by the petitioner for

appointment as Authorised Retail Dealer (ARD) at Unnichantham

of Nilambur Taluk was not being considered on account of the

interference by the 5th respondent, who was an another ARD in

Nilambur Taluk. It is also stated in the writ petition that the 5 th

respondent had filed W.P.(C.) No.5412 of 2016 before this Court,

challenging the proposal to select a new ARD at Unnichandam in

Nilambur Taluk.

2. When this matter is taken up for consideration today,

there is no representation for the petitioner. However, the

learned Government Pleader points out that the writ petition filed

by the 5th respondent (W.P.(C.) No.5412/2016), challenging the

steps taken to sanction a new authorised ration depot at

Unnichandam in Nilambur Taluk had been dismissed by this

Court as early as on 15.02.2017. It is also pointed out that the

petitioner herein was the additional 5 th respondent in W.P.(C.)

No.5412/2016.

3. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and having

perused the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C.) No.5412 of 2016, I

am of the view that nothing further survives for consideration in

the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1 - TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.01.2016. EXHIBIT P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.07.15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

EXHIBIT P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.12.2015