USHA CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in all these cases pertain to selection of Authorised Wholesale Dealer for distribution of ration articles to the retail dealers in the Trichur Taluk. The competent authority to make selection namely, the District Collector, Trichur, issued notification on 10.8.2004 for appointment of a wholesale dealer for the distribution of ration articles. Ten persons made application for selection. The District Collector considered the relative claims of all the applicants and by Ext.P6 order dated 9.6.2005 produced in W.P. 26481/2006, selected the petitioner in that W.P. for appointment. Out of the nine other contestants, 7 persons who are arrayed as respondents 6 to 12 in W.P. 26481/2006 filed appeals against Ext.P6 order before the Civil Supplies Commissioner under clause 51(10)(2) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. Since relative claims of the appellants over the grantee were to be considered and the findings of the District Collector were challenged, the Civil Supplies Commissioner got a report through the Vigilance Officer of the department pertaining to the facts stated by the Collector. The Vigilance Officer after conducting field enquiry confirmed substantially the findings on facts by the Collector in the order appealed against. However, besides reporting on other matters, the Vigilance Officer informed the Civil Supplies Commissioner that it may not be proper to retain 133 retail shops under one wholesale distributor. In short, the Collector's notification and selection of a single wholesale distributor to cater to the needs of 133 retails shops was adversely commented upon by him. The Civil Supplies Commissioner agreed with the apprehension expressed by the Vigilance Officer and he held that from past experience it has been established that a wholesale distributor may not be able to handle more than 50-60 retail shops. In other words, he was of the view that for the efficient distribution of ration articles in time to the retail dealers, the wholesaler should have only manageable number of retail shops attached to him. Consequent upon this finding, the Civil Supplies Commissioner disposed of all the appeals by vacating the order of the District Collector and with further direction to the Collector to divide the area to be covered by two or three wholesale dealers and to make fresh appointments. The order in appeal issued by the Civil Supplies Commissioner on 7.2.2006 is produced as Ext.P8 in W.P. 26481/2006. Even though another round of appeals were filed against Ext.P8 order of the Civil Supplies Commissioner, the Government vide Ext.P10 produced in the same W.P. concurred with the views of the Commissioner and upheld his order. The petitioners in these W.Ps. are challenging the above referred orders of the Civil Supplies Commissioner and the Government. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners, counsel appearing for the respondents and the Additional Advocate General appearing for the State.

(2.) The first ground raised by all the parties is that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies as well as the Government have exceeded their powers in appeal by giving direction to the Collector to make fresh selection after realloting the retail dealers under two or three wholesale dealers in the Trichur Taluk. The Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and Government agencies supported the orders of the Commissioner and the Government and besides this, he has also stated that Government as a matter of policy proposes to appoint Civil Supplies Corporation which is a Government Corporation, for wholesale distribution of ration articles. In order to consider whether the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Government in appeal are within their powers, this court has to necessarily consider their powers, particularly the powers in appeal under the Kerala Rationing Order 1966. For easy reference the relevant clauses namely clause 51(10) and (11), clause 51A and clause 71 of the Kerala Rationing Order are extracted hereunder:

(3.) The appeals filed against the Collector's order by the unsuccessful candidates are obviously under clause 51(10)(2) of the Rationing Order.