Suja Thomas @ Chinnamma Cherian vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 27081 Ker

Kerala High Court

Suja Thomas @ Chinnamma Cherian vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 6 September, 2024

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

                                                       2024:KER:69609




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

     FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946

                        WP(C) NO. 30493 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

          SUJA THOMAS @ CHINNAMMA CHERIAN
          AGED 53 YEARS
          W/O.T.G THANKACHAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, MUTTAPPILY P.O,
          ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686510


          BY ADVS.
          BOBY THOMAS
          WINSTON K.V




RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
          DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM
          CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002

    3     DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
          COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002



          SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GP.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.30493 of 2024                                           2024:KER:69609

                                          2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of September, 2024

The petitioner had staked claim for

appointment as licensee of ARD No.120 in Kanjirapally

Taluk, on the strength of her experience as sales

person of that shop for more than ten years. The

petitioner's claim having been rejected by Exhibit P3

order, she preferred an appeal before the 2 nd

respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, for the present, the petitioner will be satisfied

with a direction to consider the appeal expeditiously.

3. Learned Government Pleader submits, on

instructions that, though Exhibit P5 appeal was filed

with a delay of 408 days, no application for condoning

the delay was filed along with the appeal. Hence, the

appeal was rejected.

WP(C)No.30493 of 2024 2024:KER:69609

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends

that an application for condonation of delay is not

required to be filed and even otherwise, the appeal

could have been rejected only after hearing the

petitioner.

In so far as Exhibit P5 appeal is rejected, this

writ petition cannot be entertained, the petitioner's

remedy being to challenge the order of rejection.

The writ petition is hence closed, reserving the

petitioner's liberty to challenge the order rejecting

Exhibit P5 appeal.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE SSK/06/09 WP(C)No.30493 of 2024 2024:KER:69609

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30493/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF REGISTER SHOWING THE NAME OF SALESMAN EMPLOYED IN THE AUTHORISED RETAIL DEPOT NO.120 IN KANJIRAPALLY TALUK ISSUED BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANJIRAPALLY FROM 29.09.2008 ONWARDS

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF REGISTER SHOWING THE NAME OF SALESMAN EMPLOYED IN THE AUTHORISED RETAIL DEPOT NO.120/144 IN KANJIRAPALLY TALUK ISSUED BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANJIRAPALLY FROM 06.11.2020 ONWARDS

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 29.07.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE