IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 2193 of 2008(J)
1. V.PADMAKUMAR,KATTAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.N.SREEKALA
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY COLLECOTR
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 2193 OF 2008 J
=====================
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition concerns to the appointment of an ARD
notified by Ext.P1. Petitioner was one of the candidates who lost
in the selection process and Ext.P2 is the order that was issued
by the District Supply Officer where it has been found that the
petitioner is not a resident of the area notified. Appeal filed by
the petitioner before the District Collector was also unsuccessful.
However, in the revision that was filed, petitioner succeeded.
Dealing with the residence qualification of the petitioner,
Revisional authority held that the petitioner is entitled to benefit
of doubt. It is on that basis relief was granted.
2. However, the aggrieved persons carried the matter in
second revision before the Government and the Government in
Ext.P5 set aside Ext.P4 order of the First Revisional Authority. In
WPC 2193/08
:2 :
Ext.P5, Government have come to a finding that the petitioner is
not “normally a resident of the locality” notified in Ext.P1. It is
on that basis, appointment of the 1st respondent has been
upheld.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a resident
of the area notified and therefore he is eligible to be appointed. I
am not in a position to accept his contention. In Ext.P2 order of
the District Supply Officer, it has been found that the petitioner is
not a resident of the area notified. This finding of the District
Supply Officer has been confirmed in appeal by the District
Collector in Ext.P3. However, concurrent findings thus arrived at,
was reversed by the First Revisional Authority only giving benefit
of doubt to the petitioner. In a matter like this, extension of the
theory of benefit of doubt sounds strange and is quite
uncommon. Be that as it may, it is seen from Ext.P5 order of the
Government, where the issue of residence of the petitioner has
been dealt with in the following terms:
The main issue to be settled and decided by the Govt.
is to ascertain unambiguously the residentiality of
Sri.Padmakumar. Accordingly, a detailed local enquiry
was conducted through the District Collector,
Thiruvananthapuram. As per the report received from
the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram read as
eight paper above, it is revealed that Sri.Padmakumar
WPC 2193/08
:3 :
is not “normally a resident of the locality”, the prime
and foremost requirement stipulated in Kerala
Rationing Order. Hence Sri.Padmakumar loses an
important ground to back up his eligibility for being
appointed as licensee, and his application is liable to be
rejected.
Thus Government having conducted an independent enquiry
through the Collector and have acted upon a report to the effect
that petitioner was not a resident of the locality concerned.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the findings rendered
by the Supply Officer and confirmed by the District Collector and
again confirmed by the Government is perverse for any reason.
If that be so, the writ petition merits only to be dismissed
and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp