AMOSE Vs. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring ineligibility of the appellant (5th respondent in the O.P.) for appointment as an Authorised Retail Distributor of ration articles and simultaneously, upholding the order of the original authority, appointing the first respondent (petitioner in the O.P.) as the Authorised Retail Distributor. Applications were invited by the District Supply Officer, vide Ext.P1 dated 5.5.1993 for appointment of a regular Authorised Retail Distributor of ration articles in Ward No. III at a place called Pulinkudi in Ariyancode Panchayat within Neyyattinkara Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District. The District Supply Officer, after scrutinising the applications, found the appellant not resident locally and therefore, ineligible and from among others, he appointed the first respondent as Authorised Retail Distributor vide, Ext.P2 order dated 26.8.1993. Even though the appellant claimed to have longer experience than the first respondent, the appellant was found ineligible under proviso to Rule 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 as he was not a resident in that area where the ration shop was sanctioned. Admittedly, the ration shop was sanctioned in Ward No. III at Pulinkudi where the appointee, viz., the first respondent was residing. Since the appellant was residing in Ward No. II, he was found ineligible. The first respondent's appointment was challenged in appeal by the appellant before the District Collector, who set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration again. However, on revision filed by the first respondent, the Civil Supplies Commissioner set aside the Collector's order and restored the order of the original authority, appointing the first respondent as an Authorised Retail Distributor of the area of Ward No. III in that Panchayath. The appellant questioned the decision of the Commissioner before this Court in O.P. No. 4408 of 1995 and the learned Single Judge of this Court gave him liberty to file Revision Petition before the Government and the Government was directed to consider the matter in revision. Against this, the first respondent filed Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 368 of 1996) and vide, Ext.P9 judgment dated 26.2.1996, a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to implement the original order, pending decision of the matter in second revision to be filed by the appellant before the Government. Consequently, pending decision in the revision filed by the appellant, the first respondent was appointed as Authorised Retail Distributor and he started his business. While so, the Government decided the revision, vide Ext.P13 order dated 2.8.1996 setting aside the orders of the Civil Supplies Commissioner and the District Supply Officer and appointed the appellant as the Authorised Retail Distributor. Immediately thereafter, the first respondent approached this Court challenging the said order by filing O.P. No. 12652 of 1996. The first respondent's case is that even though on the next day of filing the Original Petition, i.e. on 6.8.1996, the case came up for admission before this Court, the respondents reported compliance of the impugned order of the Government and on that day after noon, he was removed and the appellant was substituted in the place of the first respondent, who was running the ration shop. Even though the Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent on 5.8.1996, unfortunately, the same was kept pending in this Court for nearly eleven years and only on 27.3.2007, it was disposed of by the learned single Judge allowing the first respondent's claim for entitlement of appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor, over the appellant by upholding the decision of the original authority, confirmed in revision by the Civil Supplies Commissioner. It is against this judgment, the appellant has filed this Writ Appeal and pursuant to the interim order passed in the Writ Appeal, the appellant is still continuing to run the ration shop which was handed over to him on 6.8.1996 by the authorities based on the decision of the Government in 1996, which now stands vacated under the impugned judgment. The delay in disposal of the original petition is on account of the apparent divergent views taken in the two Division Bench decisions of this Court on the meaning of 'locality' and on account of a reference and decision by Full Bench of this Court on the issue.

(2.) We have heard Senior Counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar, appearing for the appellant, Sri. Pirappancode. V.S. Sudhir, appearing for the first respondent and the Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5.

(3.) In the first place, the question of law that is raised for our decision is whether the appellant was rightly found ineligible by the learned Single Judge for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor as he is not a normal resident in the locality where the Authorised Retail Distributor was appointed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that even though Authorised Retail Distributor was to be appointed in Ward No .III, the appellant, being a resident of the neighbouring ward, viz., Ward No. II, should also be treated as a resident in the locality and so much so, he was rightly found eligible in the revisional order by the Government for appointment. The contention of the first respondent is that the resident of the locality can only mean 'resident' in the ward and so much so, the appellant is ineligible for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor in Ward No. III and the first respondent, being the only person found eligible, was rightly appointed by the original authority, whose order was confirmed in revision by the Civil Supplies Commissioner, then 'the Board of Revenue'. The relevant proviso to Rule 45(1) of the Rationing Order, 1966 is extracted as follows: