IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18686 of 2008(Y)
1. SHAJAHAN.V.Y.,S/O.YACOB,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
... Respondent
2. P.A.THANKAMMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/07/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
==================
W.P (C) .No. 18686 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order whereby the
Commissioner of Civil Supplies has rejected his application
for impleading himself as a party to an appeal filed by the
2nd respondent under the Kerala Rationing Order.
According to the petitioner, from Ext.P7 order from which
the present appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent
itself, it can be seen that it was pursuant to the petitioner’s
intervention that Ext.P7 order came to be passed. The
petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:
“i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or direction calling for the records
resulting in Exhibit P9 order, scrutinize and quash the
same;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction to the 1st respondent to
consider Exhibit P8 petition afresh with notice to the
petitioner along with the appeal filed by the 2nd
respondent against Exhibit P7 order;”
2. The 2nd respondent vehemently opposes the same.
According to her, the appeal preferred by her is a statutory
W.P (C) .No. 18686 of 2008 – 2 –
appeal as per the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order.
In such proceedings, the Kerala Rationing Order does not
envisage impleading of 3rd parties and hearing them. She
would submit that unlike in proceedings in a Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the statutory
appellate authorities do not have power to implead 3rd
parties. She also relies on the decision of the Court in
Ahamed V. State of Kerala (1983 KLT Short Notes 19, Case
No.32).
3. I have heard the rival contentions in detail.
4. May be the petitioner as a well meaning citizen, has
brought certain facts of the case to the attention of the
appropriate authorities while passing Ext.P7 order. May be
the District Collector while passing Ext.P7 order has
referred to the role of the petitioner in the matter. But it
remains a fact that the present appeal in which the
petitioner seeks to be impleaded is a statutory appeal filed
by the 2nd respondent before the appellate authority under
W.P (C) .No. 18686 of 2008 – 3 –
the Kerala Rationing Order. The Kerala Rationing Order
does not envisage impleading of additional parties in a
statutory appeal, that too of 3rd parties. In the decision in
Ahamed’s case (Supra), a learned Single Judge of the Court
has held thus :
“The Controller of Rationing has arrogated to himself
a jurisdiction not vested in him under law. It should be
remembered that the powers exercised by the Supreme
Court and the High Court in adjudicating, what is now
familiarly known as “public interest litigation” treating
letters or complaints as petitions filed in court is so done in
exercise of the powers vested in such courts to issue
prerogative writs and/or/order or direction under Articles
32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. Such powers are
very wide in content and import. It is settled law that the
powers vested in the High Courts content and import. It is
settled law that the powers vested in the High Courts under
Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised suo motu.
Thus in exercise of the powers under Article 226
and/or/Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court is enabled
to issue prerogative writs or other orders or directions and
to remedy injustice when it is brought to its notice. The
power exercised by the Supreme Court and High Courts,
flows from the Constitution, which is the paramount law of
the Nation unlike the powers vested in Statutory
Authorities like the Controller of Rationing, under a
particular statute or statutory order. The jurisdiction or
powers of the statutory authorities, which are creatures of
particular statutes, should be only as enshrined within the
framework and express provision specified in the respective
statutes. Their powers are limited and they cannot claim
any prerogative jurisdiction or powers.”
I am inclined to agree with the said decision.
W.P (C) .No. 18686 of 2008 – 4 –
Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner has no right to
be impleaded as a party to the appeal filed by the 2nd
respondent. That being so, Ext.P9 does not suffer from any
infirmity whatsoever. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed. However, if the petitioner thinks it fit, it would
be open to him to file a public interest litigation, if
ultimately the appeal ends in an order favourable to the 2nd
respondent, challenging that order, if he is legally entitled
to maintain such petition.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs