K.M. SHEEJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Smt.Sheeja, was selected and appointed as a ration dealer in respect of ARD No.71 in Ward No.3 of Chelannur panchayath in Kozhikode Taluk. Her appointment was questioned stating that she is not an ordinary resident of the panchayath.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary facts, the issue can be decided with reference to the documents relied by the petitioner and produced before the authorities to evidence her claim of residence within the panchayath. The Civil Supplies Commissioner as well as the Government found that the petitioner is not an ordinary resident of the panchayath and therefore, she is not entitled to be appointed as ration dealer though there are certain findings entered by the lower authorities in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) This Court is not adverting to the chequered history of the litigation for the simple reason that the only question to be decided is whether the petitioner has satisfied the criteria to be appointed as a retail ration dealer in respect of the ration articles or not. In terms of the third proviso to clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, a full time employee in any establishment or a person who is not normally resident in the locality shall not be eligible to hold an authorisation to run a retail ration depot under the order. The petitioner was admittedly a part time sales woman in respect of ARD No.71 as above. She hails from Thalakkulathur panchayath in Koyilandy Taluk. The petitioner's name is included in the voters' list as a native of Thalakkulathur panchayath. The petitioner had not produced any document to show that she is a resident in the locality. She, however, relied upon Ext.P9, a sale deed executed in her favour by one Surendran, transferring a residential building to her. This was on 09.03.2005. The petitioner also referred to an agreement of sale produced as Ext.P8 dated 02.06.2004 wherein it is stated that the petitioner was put in possession of the residential building. Apart from these documents, the petitioner did not produce any document to show that she is an ordinary resident. On the other hand, the report of the Panchayath President referred in Ext.P16 would show that she is not a resident of the locality of the panchayath.