JAYA JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WA 1662/09 is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging judgment dated 12/6/2008 in WP(C) No.26481/2006 by which the learned Single Judge while upholding the orders passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Government directed the Government to decide whether the distribution of wholesale ration articles in Trichur Taluk should be entrusted to Civil Supplies Corporation. Government was directed to take a decision within three months and until then the temporary wholesale distribution was permitted to continue. Further directions were also issued to the District Collector to bifurcate the retail shops under two or three wholesalers in Trichur Taluk to have an efficient distribution system.

(2.) The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner challenged Exts.P8 and P10 orders issued by the Civil Supplies Commissioner and the Government in regard to cancellation of the licence granted in favour of the petitioner as an Authorised Wholesale Distributor (AWD) in Trichur Taluk and attaching the Authorized Retail Dealers (ARD's) to different wholesale dealers. The petitioner was granted a license to operate AWD No.1 of Trichur Taluk, as per order dated 9/6/2005 issued by the District Collector. The matter came to be challenged by respondents 6 to 12 by filing appeal under Clause 51 (10) of the Kerala Rationing Order. It was alleged that the petitioner did not have sufficient storage capacity and that her husband was an ARD. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, the appellate authority, by order dated 7/2/2006, cancelled the licence granted in favour of the petitioner and issued further directions to attach the 133 ARDs to two or three wholesale dealers. A perusal of Ext.P8 order would indicate that the appellate authority did not go into the correctness or otherwise of the selection of licensee by the District Collector. It was observed that 133 ARDs cannot be attached to a single AWD, as they cannot cater to the requirement, and direction was issued to cancel the license granted in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner preferred a revision before the Government as Ext.P9, which also came to be dismissed by Ext.P10 order dated 12/9/2006. However, it was observed that Smt.Jaya Jose, the 6th respondent herein, who has been running the AWD without much complaint and having qualification and facilities, can be entrusted with the distribution of AWD No.1. Para 14 and 15 of the said order reads as under;