SELVARAJ C Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court in Jose v. Nesamony1 while dealing with the meaning of the expression 'normally resident in the locality' in clause 45(1) of Rationing Order, 1966 (Kerala), hereinafter referred to as 'Order of 1966', held that it would be the normal residence of the person in the Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation area, where the ration shop is sanctioned by the authorities. When this Original Petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, he referred the matter to a Division Bench by observing that neither in the provisions of Order of 1966 nor in the decision of the Division Bench in Jose v. Nesamony (supra) it has been clearly mentioned as to whether an applicant who resides in the same Panchayat, but in a different Ward, forwhich sanction was accorded, can be called 'normally resident in that locality' and, therefore, the matter required to be decided by the Division Bench. The Division Bench, however, doubted the very correctness of the decision in Jose v. Nesamony (supra) and, thus, referred the matter to the Full Bench to examine the correctness thereof.

(2.) IN the context of the reference thus doubting the decision of the Division Bench in Jose v. Nesamony (supra), it may not be necessary to give facts in all its minute details. Suffice it, however, to mention that C. Selvaraj, the petitioner herein, and D. Amose, the 5th respondent in the Original Petition, are fighting each other for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor (A.R.D.) in Pulinkudi, of Ward III of Ariyancode Panchayat in pursuance of a notification issued way back on 5th May, 1993. IN this period of more than a decade, it is the second round of litigation in this Court.

(3.) THE learned Division Bench while doubting the correctness of the decision in Jose v. Nesamony (supra) placed reliance upon the aforesaid proviso, which covers the situation where an Authorised Retail Distributor is incapable of running the ration business owing to old age or sickness as also in the event of his death. In the case of old age or sickness, an Authorised Retail Distributor may nominate a legal heir to run the ration business, whereas in the case of death, any of the legal heirs of the deceased nominated jointly by all the other legal heirs be appointed by the District Supply Officer as a temporary Authorised Retail Distributor and on the production of heirship certificate, such appointment shall be made permanent. THE learned Division Bench is of the view that the first proviso to clause 45(2) would indicate that so far as legal heir of the deceased is concerned without any insistence that he be a resident of the locality his application can be allowed and if that be so, it would be difficult to accept the meaning of the expression 'normally resident in the locality' as has been held in the decision of the Division Bench in Jose v. Nesamony (supra) that it would be the normal residence of the person in the Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation area, where the ration shop is sanctioned by the authorities.