NESAMONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A new ration shop was sanctioned at Kallimoodu in Ward No.VI of Vellarada Panchayat.4th respondent by Ext. P1 notification dated 14-8-1985 invited applications for appointment as authorised retail distributor for the newly sanctioned shop. Petitioner, 5th respondent and several others applied for appointment as authorised retail distributor pursuant to Ext. P1.4th respondent considered the applications and by order dated 16-5-1986 (Ext. P2) appointed the 5th respondent as the authorised retail distributor. The appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P2 order before the 3rd respondent was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of Ottasekharamangalam Panchayat, whereas the 5th respondent is a resident of Vellarada Panchayat. Ext. P3 is the order dated 5-12-1987 passed by the 3rd respondent. However, in Ext. P3 it was made clear that the petitioner is better qualified to be appointed as authorised retail distributor than the 5th respondent. Revisions filed by the petitioner against Ext. P3 order before the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent were dismissed. Exts. P-4 and P-5 are the orders. In this Original Petition petitioner challenges Exts. P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 orders.

(2.) Petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent was not justified in rejecting his appeal after finding that he is better qualified than the 5th respondent. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the true scope of the word 'locality' used in the proviso to Clause.45(2) of the Rationing Order has not been correctly understood by the 3rd respondent as well as respondents 2 and 1 while passing Exts.P-3, P4 and P-5 orders. Counsel submitted that the term 'locality' is no where defined as residence in the Panchayat. Counsel pointed out that the petitioner is residing nearer to the shop offered by him than 5th respondent to his shop. Petitioner is residing about 2 1/2 K.M. away from the shop offered by him, whereas the 5th respondent is residing 4 1/2 KM. away from the shop offered by him. Counsel argued that as the petitioner is residing much nearer to the shop offered by him than the 5th respondent he should be considered as the one residing in the locality.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that when a ration shop is sanctioned in Ward No.VI of Vellarada Panchayat the applicant who offered a shop in Ward No.VI ought to have been preferred than the applicant who offered a shop in Ward No.VII. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the object of sanctioning a ration shop in Ward No.VI is to meet the, requirements of the residents in that ward and .the appointment of the person who offered a shop in Ward No.VII as the authorised retail dealer is detrimental to the interests of the people.