ABDUL AZEEZ KUNJU Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an authorised ration dealer of shop No. 217 of Harippad Taluk. His dealership was cancelled by the second respondent by Ext. P1 order dated 21.5.1999. Cancellation was effected under Clause.45(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. Order refers to a report of the Rationing Inspector, Karuvatta dated 20.5.1999. Report pointed out misappropriation of 4047 litres of kerosene by writing 5 litres of kerosene in the records of RCS and also unauthorised sales, however, was made to the misappropriation of 132.500 Kgs. rice by writing in the Nalvazhy but not issued to card holders by entering into the ration cards. Various other infirmities were also pointed out.

(2.) Counsel for petitioner submitted that before taking drastic steps for cancellation of ARD no notice was given to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader submitted that as per Clause.45(8) of the Rationing Order the authority has got the power to suspend the appointment of the Authorised Retail Distributor temporarily pending enquiry if the authority is satisfied and it is considered necessary to do so without notice. The relevant clause is extracted below:

(3.) Learned Government Pleader submitted that due to the non obstante clause, the authority has got the power to temporarily suspend the appointment pending enquiry without notice. Non-obstante clause evidently refers to sub clause (8) of Clause.45 with regard to realisation of amount equivalent in value to the cost of the quantity of rationed articles misappropriated by falsification of accounts. We are to read the last sentence of sub clause (8) of Clause.45 with the non obstante clause, which would be as follows: