C.P.JOY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the 2 nd respondent-Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Ext.P14 order passed by the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.

(2.) The petitioner was the authorized licensee of ARD No.150 of Thrissur Taluk. The District Supply Officer, on 11.07.2008, detected some irregularities in the vicinity of the retail outlet of the petitioner. It was found that 5 sacks of rice were being transported from the shop of the petitioner in an autorickshaw. The autorickshaw was intercepted.

(3.) On 10.12.2008, Ext.P1 charge memo was served on the petitioner. In Ext.P1, it was alleged that the articles were seized outside the shop room and the shop was not permitted to be opened. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 20.12.2008, to the 4th respondent-District Supply Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that the charges framed against him were nothing but arising out of vendetta. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint dated 11.07.2008 to the 3rd respondent-District Collector pointing out true facts. The autorickshaw Driver also made a complaint to the District Collector stating that it is a bogus case