G VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA; COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES; DISTRICT COLLECTOR; TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Ext.P1 notification dated 6.1.2006, the District Collector, Kottayam, invited applications from eligible applicants for appointment as licensee to run AWD No.IV at Manarcadu. Pursuant to the said notification, petitioner and ten others applied. By Ext.P2 order passed on 7.11.2006, the District Collector, Kottayam appointed Sri.Abdul Ansari M. as the licensee to run AWD No. IV. The petitioner and two others challenged the said order by filing appeals before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. By Ext.P6 order passed on 29.2.2008, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies set aside Ext.P2 and directed the District Collector to consider whether the person appointed by the District Collector was a resident of Manarcadu as on 6.1.2006 and to take an appropriate decision in the matter. The District Collector thereafter passed Ext.P7 order dated 10.9.2009 holding that Sri.Abdul Ansari V.M. was not eligible to be appointed as the AWD. The District Collector .P.(C) No.32508/2009 also directed that a fresh notification be issued inviting applications for appointment as the licencee to run AWD No.IV. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 contending that as the District Collector ought to have considered whether the petitioner is eligible to be appointed instead of inviting fresh applications.

(2.) Ext.P7 is an order passed by the District Collect under clause 51 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. Under clause 51 (8) thereof, an appeal lies from Ext.P7 to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and a further revision lies therefrom under clause 71 thereof to the Government. Since Ext.P7 order is adverse to the interests of the person appointed as per Ext.P2, he can certainly attack the order on all available grounds and therefore, it cannot be said that Ext.P7 order which was passed on 10.9.2009 has attained finality. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 and the non-consideration of his application, he can challenge the correctness of Ext.P7 to that extent in appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and after the Commissioner of Civil Supplies passes the orders, he can move the Government in revision if the order is adverse to W.P.(C) No.32508/2009 3 him. As per clause 51 (10) of the Kerala Rationing Order, an appeal has to be presented within 30 days from the date of service of the order appealed against. Under clause 51 (11), the Commissioner can suo motu or on application revise an order passed by a subordinate. The revisional power of the Commissioner has to be invoked within 60 days from the date of service of the order sought to be revised. In the instant case, Ext.P7 order was passed on 10.9.2009. It is stated that a copy of the order was served on the petitioner on 15.10.2009. Therefore, as on today, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under clause 51 (10) and a revision under clause 71 (11) has not expired. In any event, the period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired. Therefore, as the petitioner has an effective and meaningful alternate remedy by way of appeal and a further revision before the Government, I am of the opinion that he should invoke the said remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court.

(3.) I accordingly dismiss this writ petition leaving open the petitioner's contentions and reserving liberty with him to move the Commissioner of Civil Supplies in appeal and the W.P.(C) No.32508/2009 Government in revision thereafter if he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies.