M.A. JOSEPH Vs. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the authorised/retail distributor of ARD No.151 of Cherthala Taluk.The Taluk Supply Officer conducted inspection on 16.6.1984 and found huge shortage in respect of different items of articles in the ration shop.Ext.P1 proceedings were initiated by the District Supply Officer(2nd respondent)on the basis of the report of the Taluk Supply Officer(first respondent ).Appellant was issued show cause notice as to why the dealership in his name should not be cancelled.Considering his representation the second respondent held that the allegations made against him in the report of the Taluk Supply Officer were correct in respect of rice,wheat,sugar and kerosene.Having heard the arguments of the appellant the second respondent ordered cancellation of the dealership of the appellant.The security amount was also forfeited.

(2.) APPELLANT filed appeal before the District Collector(third respondent ).The appeal was dismissed by Ext.P3 order.Appellant filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue and that also ended in dismissal by Ext.P4.Thereafter appellant moved the Government in second revision.Government declined to interfere and the revision petition was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order.

(3.) CONTENTION of the appellant is that this is a case where the Taluk Supply Officer has conducted enquiry and so he should himself have passed the order and as that has not been done and as Ext.P2 order was passed by the District Supply Officer the same cannot have any legal validity.The question that arises for consideration is where the Taluk Supply Officer has found that the authorised retail distributor has contravened any of the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order and has transmitted the report to the District Supply Officer whether the latter has power to suspend or cancel the appointment of the dealer.In other words can it be held that in a case where the Taluk Supply Officer has found contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Rationing order he alone is entitled to pass the consequential order.Appellant's contention is that transfer of the file to the District Supply Officer by the Taluk Supply Officer was not properly done.According to him Taluk Supply Officer alone had the power to pass the order he having found contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order.To sum up appellant contended that the order passed by the District Supply Officer cannot have any legal validity as he lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in a case where action was initiated by the Taluk Supply Officer.