JOSE Vs. NESAMONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 5th respondent in O.P.No.7573 of 1989 is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent in the appeal had filed the above original petition challenging the validity of Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 orders passed by the respondents, wherein the above authorities have appointed the appellant herein as an ARD under Clause.45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, in respect of the new ration shop sanctioned at a place called Kallimoodu in Vellarada Panchayat in Neyyattinkara Taluk, for which applications were invited as per Ext. P1 notification.

(2.) The 5th respondent in the appeal, viz., the District Supply Officer, Thiruvananthapuram published Ext. P1 notification wherein applications were invited from persons who are interested to conduct an authorised ration distribution outlet in Neyyattinkara Taluk at Vellarada Panchayat at a place called Kallimmoodu in Ward VI of the said Panchayat. The locality specified in the said notification is Vellarada Panchayat in Neyyattinkara Taluk. Pursuant to Ext. P1 notification, 10 persons had applied before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent considered the relative qualifications of all the applicants and selected and appointed the appellant as the Authorised Retail Distributor for the new ration shop sanctioned in the locality as per Ext. P2 order, wherein the District Supply Officer has selected the appellant herein mainly on the ground that he is a resident of the Vellarada Panchayat whereas -the first respondent herein is not a resident of the said Panchayat, but a resident of Ottasekharamangalam Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said selection and appointment, the first respondent herein filed an appeal before the 4th respondent, District Collector, who considered the matter in great detail and confirmed Ext. P2 order passed by the District Supply Officer. Dissatisfied with Ext. P3 order passed by the District Collector, first respondent herein again had taken up the matter before the 3rd respondent, Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram. The said authority also had considered the revision in great detail and passed Ext. P4 order dated 4-5-1988 wherein he also considered the question of residence of the appellant and the first respondent and came to the conclusion that under the 3rd proviso to Clause.45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, a person who is not normally a resident in the locality shall not be appointed as an ARD and the first respondent herein who was the revision petitioner before that authority is not a resident of the locality as contemplated under R.45(1) 3rd proviso of the Order and as such he is ineligible for consideration for appointment as authorised dealer in respect of the ration shop that had been sanctioned in the locality viz. Vellarada Panchayat. The matter was again taken up by the first respondent herein before the Government. Government also considered the entire matter in detail and passed Ext. P5 order dated 6-6-1989 wherein Government concurred with the order passed by the 3rd respondent and accepted the finding entered in Ext. P4 in respect of the residence of the appellant as well as the first respondent in the light of the 3rd proviso to Clause.45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order and negatived the contentions raised by the first respondent for selection and appointment as an ARD of the new ration shop sanctioned in the locality, viz., the Vellarada Panchayat since he is residing in another locality, namely; Ottasekharamangalam Panchayat. Aggrieved by the above orders, the first respondent herein questioned the validity of Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 orders before this Court.

(3.) A learned single Judge of this court considered the matter in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this court under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and came to the conclusion that the word 'locality' in 3rd proviso to Clause.45(2) (obviously a mistake for Clause.45(1) cannot be given such restricted meaning as done in Exts.P3, P4 and P5. The learned Judge also held that scope of the word 'locality' used in the above proviso cannot be held to coincide within the limits of a Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat and the meaning of the word' residence' in the locality cannot be restricted to an area in the Panchayat in case where the petitioner has offered a building for housing the ration shop in the ward for which notification has been specifically made and when he resides in the neighbourhood though it is outside the Panchayat. The learned single Judge further found that the term 'locality' used in the proviso to Clause.45(2) has to be understood as a place within a reasonable distance of the ration shop especially taking into account the convenience, of the people of the area to have access to the shop. On the above reasoning, the learned single Judge quashed Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 and the 5th respondent herein was directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing both parties. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has pome up in appeal.