IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14116 of 2006(E)
1. M.H.MUHAMMED, S/O.HASSAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. AMINA MOHAMMED, W/O.LATE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.14116/2006-E
------------------------------
Dated this, the 23rd day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is a resident of Ward No.II of Edavatty
Grama Panchayat in Thodupuzha Taluk.. He belongs to a family
Below Poverty Line (BPL). He is having a ration card attached
to ARD No.13 of Thodupuzha Taluk. Recently, ARD No.208 has
been opened in Ward No.II of Edavatty Grama Panchayat, as
per order dated 7.2.2005. It is very convenient for him to have
his card attached to that shop. There were similarly placed
persons also, who were desirous of transferring their ration
cards from ARD No.13 to ARD No.208. So, the petitioner and
others preferred Ext.P6 representation before the District Supply
Officer for the said purpose. But, the said representation is not
being considered, in view of Ext.P4 order passed by this Court in
CMP No.64011/2001 in OP No.39077/2001, which says, no
further cards shall be transferred from ARD No.13. In the light
WPC No.14116/2006
– 2 –
of the said interim order, the Original Petition itself was, later,
disposed of, by Ext.P5 judgment dated 5.7.2004. In view of
Exts.P4 and P5, Ext.P6 was not considered by the District
Supply Officer. So, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking
appropriate reliefs. The learned Judge, who heard the Writ
Petition, felt that it is only appropriate that the matter is heard
by a Division Bench. Thus, the Writ Petition was referred to the
Division Bench.
2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We are of
the view that Exts.P4 and P5 cannot affect the rights of third
parties, like the petitioner herein and other signatories to
Ext.P6, who were not parties to that Original Petition. It is so
declared. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P6 in accordance with law, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein, representing
the claimants in Ext.P6 and also the licensee of ARD No.13 of
Thodupuzha Taluk. This, the 2nd respondent shall do within one
month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
judgment. Needless to say, the 2nd respondent shall take a
WPC No.14116/2006
– 3 –
decision on Ext.P6, ignoring Exts.P4 and P5.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
nm.