IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24390 of 2008(C)
1. N.SADANANDA PAI & COMPANY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
5. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY
For Petitioner :SMT.R.RANJINI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :21/08/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.24390 OF 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order, whereby the
petitioner has been directed to pay the amounts recovered by the
petitioner from the customers towards the differential cost of
kerosene, as a licenced dealer of the Civil Supplies Department of
the Government of Kerala. The petitioner’s contention is that in
view of Ext.P15 judgment, the Government has no power to
realise the differential cost of kerosene as there is no principal-
agent relationship between the Government and the petitioner.
2. In view of the two Division Bench decisions in All
Kerala Retail Ration Dealers Association V. Union of India
[2001(2) KLT 1] and State of Kerala and others V.
Mathunni Mathew & Sons [ILR 2007(2) Kerala 475], that
issue is no more res integra and therefore the petitioner cannot
now contend that the petitioner is not an agent of the
Government. As such, if the petitioner has realised any
differential cost for kerosene from the customers, the petitioner
W.P.(c)No.24390/08 2
cannot contend that the petitioner will not refund the same to
the Government on the ground that the petitioner is not an
agent of the Government. However, the petitioner has got a
case that the petitioner has not realised any differential cost at
all and further that the quantification in Ext.P5 was without
notice to the petitioner or a hearing.
3. The learned Government Pleader points out that as
is clear from Ext.P5 itself, the petitioner has been served with
a notice dated 30.4.2008. The petitioner would contend that
the petitioner has not received that notice at all.
4. I am of opinion that without going into that
controversy, the matter can be disposed of by directing
another opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Accordingly, while upholding the right of the Government to
realise the differential cost recovered by the petitioner from
the customers, I dispose of this writ petition with the following
directions:
Ext.P5 shall be treated as a show cause notice. The
petitioner shall file objections to the same within a period of
one week. The petitioner shall appear before the 5th
respondent on 2nd September 2008 on which date or on a
W.P.(c)No.24390/08 3
subsequent date fixed for the purpose, the 5th respondent shall
hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the matter.
While disposing of the same, the petitioner’s grievance in Exts.
P12 to P14 shall also be considered and orders passed. Till
orders are so passed, the recovery proceeding shall be kept in
abeyance.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.24390/08 4