RAVEENDRAN T.T. Vs. P.P.SATHEESH CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is filed by 8th respondent in the W.P(C). No.23985 of 2018. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had set aside Ext.P22 order passed by the District Collector. By Ext.P22 order, the District Collector had, after considering the contentions urged by either side, issued the following order (translated version reads as under):

(2.) The appellant is a ration card holder of the ration shop, conducted by the first respondent herein. The retail shop of first respondent was suspended in the year 2012, on the allegation that he did not take stock of rice and wheat allotted for the month of September 2012 till 11.9.2012, the ration materials were not stocked in the shop for distribution and the shop was not opened for three days. In a representation submitted by the first respondent, Ext.P8 order came to be passed by the District Supply Officer on 16.3.2014, revoking suspension. English translation of the said order reads as under:

(3.) According to the appellant, while interfering with Ext.P22 order, the learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that there is a statutory appeal against the said order. In fact, a perusal of the said order would indicate that the said issue had been considered by the learned Single Judge and formed an opinion that alternate remedy is not a bar for entertaining writ petition. We do not think it necessary to interfere with the said finding.