IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2767 of 2011(U)
1. K.L.SIJO,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
3. THE CONTROLLER OF RATIONING,
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.2767 of 2011
--------------------------
Dated this the 28th January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was the ARD 338 of Ollur Panchayat. On
25.2.2006, a Special Squad of the Civil Supplies
Department inspected the business premises of the
petitioner. On such inspection, it was found that damaged
stock of 25 kg matta rice and 250 kgs of wheat, which were
not good for distribution, were kept in the depot. Various
documents were not produced for inspection, shortage of
stock was found and the licensee was absent and his
brother was conducting the business. On these and other
allegations, after complying all procedural formalities,
Ext.P6 order was issued by the 3rd respondent, cancelling
the appointment of the petitioner.
2. Petitioner filed an appeal before the
Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The Commissioner
considered the matter and issued Ext.P7 order, rejecting
the appeal finding that gross irregularities were committed
by the dealer. A revision was filed before the Government,
a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8. That revision was
W.P (C) No.2767 of 2011
2
also rejected as per Ext.P9 order. Although , the statute
did not provide for any review still petitioner filed a review
petition. It would appear that review petition was
entertained and an order of stay was initially granted. But
however, the review petition was also rejected by Ext.P10
order. In the meantime notification was also issued for
appointing a dealer. It is challenging the aforesaid
proceedings the writ petition is filed.
3. A reading of Ext.P6, the order of the 3rd
respondent, shows the irregularities committed by the
petitioner. On materials these irregularities were proved
and the nature of irregularities cannot be said to be
anything other than the grave. In such circumstances,
dealership of the petitioner was ordered to be terminated.
This order of termination was upheld by the appellate and
revisional authority concurrently.
4. Having regard to the unassailable findings
contained in Ext.P6, which have been concurrently upheld
by the appellate and revisional authority and as the
petitioner has not made out anything to hold that the
W.P (C) No.2767 of 2011
3
findings are perverse, I do not find any reason to accept
the case of the petitioner.
Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.A to Judge