IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30181 of 2006(R)
1. JAYA JOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
5. SHRI. A.K.PAUL,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :26/02/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.30181 OF 2006 (R)
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
The District Collector, Thrissur, invited applications for
appointment of an authorised wholesale distributor of ration
articles. The choice fell in favour of the petitioner. The
contesting 5th respondent challenged that decision before the
Civil Supplies Commissioner and later before the Government, as
per Exhibit R5(d). Ultimately, the Government, as per Exhibit P5
Government Order, held that the 5th respondent is entitled to
have the allotment in his favour since he provided a solvency
certificate for rupees seven lakhs and because he was a
physically handicapped person.
2. The required solvency for the purpose of the competition
was for rupees six lakhs, which was provided by the petitioner as
well as the 5th respondent. Without a prescription being
provided in that regard, it is inappropriate that a comparison of
WPC.30181/2006(R)
-: 2 :-
solvency amounts has been made to choose the person entitled
to be appointed as the dealer.
3. Under clause 45(2)(a), a physically handicapped person is
entitled to be considered with preference, while considering the
question of allotment of retail depots. That rule does not apply
to wholesale depots. There is also no rule pointed out before me
which enable the Government to give a preference for physically
handicapped persons, while choosing a wholesale dealer.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the observation in Exhibit P5
decision in favour of the 5th respondent goes.
5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent however submits
that if one goes through the contentions raised in Exhibit R5(d)
revision filed by him, it can be easily seen that the Government
did not advert to consider all the rival contentions of the parties.
WPC.30181/2006(R)
-: 3 :-
6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, Exhibit P5 is quashed
and the matter is relegated for reconsideration by the
Government, in accordance with the provisions of the rationing
order. Let the needful be done after hearing the parties and
final decision shall be taken within an outer limit of four months
from the date of hearing of the parties.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Judge
ms