K P VARKEY Vs. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DEVIKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) So far as I can judge from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Taluk Supply Officer it was under Clause.8 of the Kerala Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 that he made the impugned order Ex. P-1 cancelling the dealer's licence granted to the petitioner the order itself most regrettably does not disclose under what power he purported to act. Now, under that clause it is only the licensing authority that can cancel a licence and according to Clause.2(d) of the Order "licensing authority" means the Collector of the District. The respondent does not claim to be the Collector of the District and his claim that he has been authorised to perform the functions of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, whether well founded or not, seems to me altogether irrelevant.

(2.) The impugned order seems to be altogether without jurisdiction and since it is in the nature of a penalty and also affects the legal rights of the petitioner it has to be quashed. It is hereby quashed.