P.V.SEBASTIAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is an authorised retail distributor conducting ARD No.247 of Aluva Taluk is aggrieved by the rejection of his request for shifting the ration shop from ward no.1.

(2.) Petitioner is the licensee conducting ARD no 247 of Aluva Taluk since 1985. It is stated that when he commenced the ration shop, there were 300 ration cardholders attached to the shop from ward no.1, majority of whom were plantation workers. It is stated that the number of cardholders reduced consequent to the retirement of the plantation workers and as at present there are only 163 ration cardholders and out of them, 150 are residents of ward No.4 of Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat and the rest of them are residents of ward No.1. It is stated that the ration cardholders of ward No.4 are residing far away from the ration shop. Seeing the difficulty faced by them to collect ration articles, the petitioner had requested for permission to open a subcentre of the ARD 247 in ward No.4. It is stated that as per Ext.P1 report dt.21.05.2018, the 3 rd respondent - the Taluk Supply Officer, had addressed the 2 nd respondent explaining the inconvenience caused to the ration cardholders. However, the 2 nd respondent - the District Supply Officer rejected the request stating that there is no provision for opening a subcentre for a ration shop. Thereupon the petitioner submitted an application for shifting the ration shop from ward no.1 to 4 suggesting the building number also to which it can be shifted. It is stated that 167 ration cardholders had also submitted a petition before the 2nd respondent pointing out their convenience in the event of a shifting of the ration shop. But the 2 nd respondent rejected that application as per Ext.P3 letter stating that the petitioner did not produce the no objection certificate from the Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the same. According to the petitioner, shifting is not allowed only because of the personal grudge of one of the members of the Panchayat stating that he would not be able to produce a certificate from the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, there is no provision contained in clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order which provides for a no objection certificate from the Panchayat. He thereafter submitted Ext.P4 representation before the District Collector on 10.08.2020. Whileso he had also requested for permission to stock the ration articles in the building available in ward No.4, for the purpose of distribution of the free kit to the ration cardholders. It is stated that the said suggestion was accepted and then he could distribute the ration articles from the ward no.4. Even though this could be done for a period of 3 months, the 3 rd respondent did not permit him from 23.9.2020 onwards to unload the ration articles. The Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to shift the ration shop from building no.1/404 to building no.4/112 of Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat and also to the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 representation.

(3.) The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as ARD for ward No.1 of Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat for the purpose of carrying out distribution of rationed articles to the cardholders of ward No.1 of the panchayat as per Ext.R2(a) order dated 20.02.1986. It is stated that as per clause 45(4) of Kerala Rationing Order, the ARD is entitled to supply rationed articles in accordance with the order of appointment in the areas which are specified therein, in tune with the terms of the agreements executed by the petitioner on his appointment. It is stated that out of the 165 cardholders presently attached to the petitioner's depot, 145 are residents of ward No.4, which is about 11 km away from the depot. It is stated that the petitioner's request for opening a subcentre was forwarded to the Director of Civil Supplies, who rejected it as per Ext.R2(c) letter dated 21.06.2018 stating that there is no provision for the same. Ext.R2(d) application submitted by the petitioner on 4.12.2018 for shifting of the ration shop from the present ward No.1 to ward No.4, which is 11 km away, was also considered and it was rejected as per Ext.R2(f) letter dt.19.06.2020 of the District Supply Officer. It is stated that normally the shifting of ration shop from one building to another would be required in circumstances like deterioration of the present building, requirement of additional space or on demand of the landlord to vacate the building. In such cases Shifting is allowed to another building in the notified ward itself. In case of non availability of suitable building in the notified ward, sanction would be accorded to shift the shop to the adjacent ward only after ascertaining the convenience of cardholders through local bodies. It is stated that the decision of the local body is also considered with due importance before final orders are issued, going by the prevailing practice. It is further stated that the building proposed by the petitioner is 11 km away from the present building and moreover as per Ext.R2(e) resolution the Panchayat has expressed its dissent against shifting the depot from ward no.1 to ward no.4. It is also stated that there is another depot within 1 km from the proposed building in ward no.4. Ext.R2(f) order dt.19.6.2020 was issued after considering all these aspects. It is the further contention of the respondent that under the National Food Security Act, 2013, which is implemented in the State from 1.11.2016, the role of local bodies is important for the functioning of targeted public distribution system and it is the responsibility of the local authorities for the proper implementation of the Act in the respective areas. It is also stated that as at present portability facility is available to cardholders to procure rationed articles from any ration shop. It is stated that as per Ext.R2(g) letter dated 16.10.2019, the Government had rejected the request of the petitioner for opening a subcentre. At that time also, the facility for portability was mentioned by the Government. It is stated that the appeal submitted by the petitioner against Ext.R2(f) order is pending consideration.