IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 519 of 2008()
1. P.A.THANKAMMA, AWD NO.1,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
... Respondent
2. CISHO CHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS,
3. JOHN.P.J., S/O.P.V.JOSE, AGED 37 YEARS,
4. P.K.MUKUNDAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :10/03/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.519 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
The appellant being aggrieved by the interim order passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6874 of 2006 dated 7th August, 2007
is before us in this appeal.
(2). The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this
appeal. She is an Authorised Wholesale Dealer (“AWD” for short) of rationed
articles of Kodungallur Taluk. In the petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the petitioner had called in question Ext.P4 Notification issued by
the respondent inviting applications for appointment of another AWD for
Mathilakam Panchayat in Kodungallur Taluk. According to the petitioner, at
present there are 2 AWD Shop Nos. 1 and 6. AWD Shop No.1 belongs to
the petitioner and AWD Shop No.6 belongs to T.A.Jose and Company. It is
further stated in the petition that, there are 129 authorised retail dealers in
Kodungallur Taluk. Out of it, 69 are attached to the petitioner’s shop No.1
and 60 are attached to AWD Shop No.6. It is further contended that allotment
of more AWD shop will reduce the number of ARD attached to the petitioner’s
shop and it will not be possible to function viably.
(3). The learned Single Judge while entertaining the writ
petition has granted an interim order of stay staying Ext.P4 Notification.
(4). On a later date, the learned Single Judge has vacated the
interim order granted.
(5). Aggrieved by the modification of the interim order so made
W.A.No.519 of 2008 -2-
by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has presented this writ appeal.
(6). After hearing Sri.R.D.Shenoy, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, we are of the opinion that, at this stage it is not necessary
for us to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Suffice to say, if any appointment is made pursuant to Ext.P4 Notification
issued, the same will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Further, if
we grant liberty to the petitioner to request the learned Single Judge to hear
the matter out of turn, it may not cause any prejudice to the other side. In
that view of the matter we pass the following:
Order
i). The writ appeal is disposed of.
ii). Any appointment that may be made by the Ist respondent will
be subject to the result of the writ petition.
iii). Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make appropriate
application before the learned Single Judge to hear the matter out
of turn. We make it clear that, if and when such request is made,
the learned Single Judge may consider the request and pass
appropriate orders.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
MS/DK.