K.T.MOHAMMED SAKKEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sixth respondent seeks review of the judgment in the writ petition. Parties are referred to in this order as they appear in the writ petition for convenience.

(2.) The sixth respondent was running an authorised ration depot. The petitioner was permitted to run the said ration depot on temporary basis when the licence of the sixth respondent was suspended for a short period pending a disciplinary action. The said arrangement has been continuing for almost four years. The petitioner thereupon approached this court seeking directions to the respondents to regularize the dealership on the ground mainly that he is conducting the dealership properly and that the card holders would be put to prejudice, if the dealership is restored to the sixth respondent. When the matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader, placing reliance on Ext.R3(b) communication, submitted that until the Government takes a policy decision on the issue of regularization of temporary licences issued for running ration depots, it has been decided not to disturb the functioning of temporary dealerships. It is seen that based on the said submission, the writ petition was closed.

(3.) The case set out by the sixth respondent in the review petition is that in the light of the judgment sought to be reviewed, the respondents concerned are not finalising the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. According to him, the decision of the Government contained in Ext.R3(b) communication does not apply to the case on hand. It was pointed out that the petitioner was issued temporary licence solely for the reason that the licence issued to the sixth respondent was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings and if the disciplinary proceedings culminates in favour of the sixth respondent, he is entitled to get back the licence and the petitioner who runs the shop during the interregnum would not have any right to run the shop.