N I NOORJAHAN Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Sri.N.A.Ibrahimkutty, who was the original licensee, of Authorised Retail Distributorship No.247 of Kunnathunadu Taluk, under the provisions of Kerala Rationing Order.

(2.) The petitioner says that her father died on 15.09.2007 and that subsequent to his death her mother was provisionally appointed as the distributor, by order dated 19.03.2008 issued by the competent authority. The petitioner says that her mother also died on 15.10.2008, and that thereafter, on 07.11.2008 the Authorities cancelled the distributorship on the ground that both her parents are no more. The petitioner produced on record Exts.P1 and P2 being the orders under which her parents were appointed as distributors as mentioned above.

(3.) The petitioner says that subsequent to the cancellation of the distributorship on 11.02.2009 a letter was issued by the Taluk Supply Officer/2 nd respondent herein asking the petitioner to submit an application, being the legal heir of the original distributor, for being appointed as the new distributor and she has produced on record Ext.P3 in evidence of this assertion. The petitioner says that she thus submitted Ext.P4 application which, according to her, is still pending before the District Supply Officer/1st respondent herein. As per the petitioner, the District Supply Officer/1 st respondent made a report to the Taluk Supply Officer on 28.03.2009, and the latter recommended her distributorship as per Ext.P5. The petitioner says that she was, therefore, under the legitimate expectation that her application would be considered favourably. According to her, however, while she was so waiting, the respondents abruptly issued Ext.P6 notification, under which applications were called from other persons for the very same distributorship. She, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 has been illegal and unlawful on various grounds.