IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35539 of 2010(N)
1. N.PRASANNAKUMAR,SREE CHITHIRA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA ,REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,ALAPPUZHA.
5. VENU,THARAPPATTU HOUSE, MAHADEVIKADU PO,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35539 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29thday of November, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the 4th respondent, inviting
application for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor for
ARD No.146/Karthikappally. Among others, the petitioner and
the 5th respondent were also applicants. After a process of
selection, 5th respondent was appointed by Ext.P2 order.
2. Against this action, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal to
the 2nd respondent. After hearing the appeal, along with other
appeals filed, Ext.P3 appeal was rejected by Ext.P4 order.
Aggrieved by this order, Ext.P5 revision was filed by the
petitioner, which was also considered along with the other
revisions and was rejected by Ext.P6 order. The second revision
filed before the Government was also rejected by Ext.P8. It is
challenging the afore said orders, this writ petition has been filed.
3. There are two contentions in the writ petition and these
contentions were urged by the counsel. First one is that, Ext.P1
2
W.P.(C).No.35539 of 2010
notification required the applicants to furnish solvency for `
30,000/-. It is stated that, in Ext.P1 it was also provided that,
those who do not have solvency of their own, should furnish
solvency from others. According to the petitioner, the latter
category of the applicants could have been considered, only in
the absence of applicants belonging to the former category, viz.,
applicants with their own solvency. The other contention raised
is that, the 5th respondent is not a resident of Ward No.10, in
relation to which the application was invited.
3. As far as the first contention is considered, a reading of
Ext.P1, the notification, itself demonstrates that, there was no
distinction made among the applicants as sought, to be made
out by the petitioner. Therefore, that plea of the petitioner has
no force and has been rightly rejected concurrently by all
authorities.
4. In so far as the second contention is concerned, that the
5th respondent is not a resident of Ward No.10, neither before
the District Collector nor before the appellate authority or the
3
W.P.(C).No.35539 of 2010
revisional authorities, did the petitioner raise such a contention.
Therefore, I am persuaded to allow the petitioner to raise this
contention for the first time in this writ petition.
Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge.
ami/