Mariyam Beevi vs The Commissioner on 25 March, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 9933 of 2008(G)


1. MARIYAM BEEVI,AGED 85 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY RATIONING CONTROLLER

3. THE TALUK SUPPLY SUPPLY OFFICER

4. A.S. SALIM,AWD IX, ANCHAL, KOLLAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.BOSE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/03/2008

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
             ------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) 9933 of 2008
             -------------------------------------
                      Dated: MARCH 25, 2008

                             JUDGMENT

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P4, P4(a) and

P5.

2. Ext.P4 shows that on inspection, irregularities were found

in the wholesale depot of the petitioner and the distributorship

was suspended pending enquiry. Ext.P4(a) is the mahazar that was

prepared and Ext.P5 is the document evidencing entrustment of the

articles seized from the petitioner to another AWD. Therefore, the

correctness or otherwise of the action will depend upon the validity

or otherwise of Ext.P4 order placing the petitioner under

suspension.

3. The challenge against Ext.P4 has been raised on the

ground that before issuing Ext.P4, the petitioner was not given a

notice or opportunity to state her case. In order to sustain this

contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on clause 51(8)

of the Kerala Rationing Order.

WP(C) 9933/08
Page numbers

4. I have gone through the aforesaid order and I am not in a

position to accept the contention raised by the counsel. Clause 51

(8) discloses that a notice and an opportunity to state her case need

be given to the petitioner only when a punishment is imposed and

not when suspension is ordered pending enquiry. No opportunity

is contemplated under the rule when suspension is pending enquiry

and this is evident from the rule itself which provides that “if

considered necessary, he may suspend the appointment of the

wholesale distributor temporarily pending enquiry”. Therefore

Ext.P4 cannot be interfered on the ground that notice and

opportunity was not given to the petitioner.

5. Once Ext.P4 is upheld, there is no question of interfering

with Exts.P4(a) or P5.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

mt/-