VARKEY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this original petition is the meaning to be attributed to the expression "normally resident" occurring in the Second Proviso to Clause.51(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: Consequent on the sanctioning of a new Authorised Wholesale Depot (A.W.D.) at Vennikulam of Puramattom Panchayat in Mallappally Taluk as per Ext. P1 proceedings of the Government, the first respondent, District Collector issued Ext. P2 notification inviting applications for the appointment of a new A.W.D. In response to Ext. P2 notification, 8 applications were received including Ext. P3 application filed by the petitioner of which the application received from one M/s. Palathungal Agencies was rejected for want of required documents. The remaining 7 applications were got enquired into through the Taluk Supply Officer, Mallappally. On the basis of the enquiry report and after conducting personal interviews the first respondent as per Ext. P4 proceedings appointed the third respondent as the new A.W.D. at Vennikkulam. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed Ext. P5 appeal petition before the second respondent.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed O.P.2367 of 1988 before this court which was disposed of by judgment dated 23-3-1988 with direction to the second respondent, Commissioner of Civil Supplies to dispose of Ext. P5 appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt of the judgment in O.P.No.2367 of 1988 the appeal was posted for hearing on 4-5-1988 by the second respondent. Since the first appellant (petitioner herein) and the third appellant (one Rajasekharan Nair) were absent on the date notified for hearing, the second respondent, after hearing the sole respondent (3rd respondent herein) passed orders rejecting Ext. P5 appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the order of the first respondent as per proceedings No.CS.A7-34186/87 dated 7-5-1988. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.P.No.3884 of 1988 before this court complaining that notice for hearing of Ext. P5 appeal which was fixed on 4-5-1988 was actually received by him only on the very same date and hence he could not be present for hearing. This court disposed of the said original petition directing the second respondent to take up the appeal again and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment after giving notice to the petitioner and other parties interested. On receipt of a copy of the judgment in the original petition on 6-10-1988, the second respondent after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the affected parties, passed Ext. P6 order No.CS.A7-32484/88 dated 6-12-1988 holding that the petitioner is disqualified for appointment as A.W.D. since he is not "normally resident" in the locality within the meaning of that expression in the second proviso to C1.51(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order and the decision of the first respondent District Collector to appoint the third respondent as A.W.D. was upheld. The challenge in this original petition is directed against Exts.P4 and P6 orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as A.W.D. at Vennikulam, pursuant to Ext. P1 order and Ext. P2 notification.