V I VARKEY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 5206 of 1981 which has been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court by the judgment dated 22-12-1983. The District Collector, Alleppey, has published under Clause.51(ii) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, a notification inviting applications in the prescribed form for the appointment of an authorised wholesale distributor in respect of a particular depot within the Thiruvalla Municipality. The appellant petitioner and the 4th respondent were two among other applicants. The 3rd respondent District Collector decided the matter in favour of the 4th respondent as per his order dated 30-6-1980, a true copy of which is Ext. P3, and ordered the issue of licence to him. On appeal, as per the order dated 14-1-1981, a true copy of which is Ext. P4, the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Board of Revenue, set aside Ext. P3 order and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent, District Collector, directing him to go through the entire procedure ab initio. There was also a direction to issue a fresh notification inviting applications for the A. W. D., and the selection to be made after due process according to the statute. In Para.7 of Ext. P4 order the 2nd respondent has stated as follows:

(2.) Sri. M. I. Joseph, the counsel for the appellant petitioner, submitted that the notification issued by the 3rd respondent required the application to be submitted in the prescribed form; and in the form it was stated that incomplete applications would be liable to be rejected. According to him, the application from the 4th respondent was not accompanied either by the solvency certificate or the certificate of consent by the owner of the building in which the 4th respondent proposed to conduct the depot in case the licence for that purpose was granted to him. His argument was that the 2nd respondent had found that the 4th respondent's application was not accompanied by these certificates, and it was sufficient reason for rejecting his application summarily, and therefore was no valid reason why the Government in exercise of its power of revision should have interfered with Ext. P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The question before us is whether we should, in exercise of the power under Art.226 of the Constitution, interfere with the decision of the Government. We have not been shown any provisions in the relevant Rules which requires that an application should be accompanied by solvency certificate or certificate of consent from the owner of the building. Even in the application form, which is not a statutory form, but only a form prescribed by the executive authority, there is no mention that the solvency certificate or the consent certificate is to accompany the application. The only requirement in term of the application form itself is that if the answer to the question whether the applicant was solvent was in the affirmative, the certificate in proof of the extent of the solvency was to be produced. It would serve the same purpose even if the certificate is produced any time before the Collector takes up the matter for decision. There is not only no non compliance with the requirements of the relevant provisions, but also no prejudice caused to any of the parties by the fact that the application was not accompanied by the certificates, but were made available before the Collector took up the matter for consideration.