ASIYA LATHEEF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mrs.Asiya Latheef filed these two writ petitions. Her family consists of her husband, the minor children and aged in-laws. Her husband is a cancer patient undergoing treatment at R.C.C., Thiruvananthapuram and her elder son Asif Muhammed is a mentally retarded boy. She is aggrieved because the respondents are not taking any action on her application to get licence for Authorised Retails Distributor (ARD) No.115 of Kozhencherry Taluk in Pathanamthitta Municipality. I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C). No.27245 of 2010:

(2.) Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the 3rd respondent inviting applications from eligible and willing candidates under category for Women or Women's Co-operative Societies for appointment of dealership of Depot No.115 of Kozhencherry Taluk in Pathanamthitta Municipality. The petitioner was the saleswomen of ARD No.115 of Kozhencherry Taluk in Pathanamthitta Municipality. The petitioner, being a woman and experience in conducting the ration shop, applied for the dealership in accordance to Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the petitioner's application.

(3.) Based on Ext.P1 notification, except the petitioner, there was no other applicants. The application and supporting documents of the petitioner were scrutinized and thereafter the enquiry was conducted by the authorities in accordance to the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. After scrutiny of the documents and after necessary enquiry, it is found that the petitioner is eligible for appointment as Authorised Retails Distributor of ARD No.115 of Kozhencherry Taluk in Pathanamthitta Municipality. But, because of an interim order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1217 of 2009, the respondents refused to appoint the petitioner as ARD. The same was delayed indefinitely. When that writ appeal was pending and based on the interim order passed in that writ appeal, the Controller of Rationing has filed a report showing the district wise compliance of the reservation followed in the appointment of ARDs. In that report it was found that in the District of Pathanamthitta, out of total 806 ARDs, 184 of them are women, and Scheduled Caste and Physically Handicapped were 16 and 5 respectively. According to the respondents, the women reservation is above the limit and they decided to re-notify the vacancy at ARD No.115. It is the case of the petitioner that the 184 women ARDs are not of persons appointed by reservation, but it includes such women appointed in the general category or as legal heirs of deceased ARD's. Thus, though there are 184 women ARD's, the number of appointment made by such reservation for women is not ascertained by the respondents is the case. Hence it is contended that the stand of the respondents are not sustainable. Therefore W.P.(C). No.27245 of 2010 was filed with following prayers: