M C RAVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA; COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES; DISTRICT COLLECTOR; DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER; S SENAN, KRISHNA NIVAS; BIJU KUMAR VS S/O VELUKUTTY NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.N. Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6.

(2.) Pursuant to the directions issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, the District Supply Officer, Thiruvananthapuram issued a notice dated 29.10.1994 inviting applications for appointment as ARD No.607 in Ward No.VI of Maranalloor Grama Panchayat in Neyyattinkara Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram district. The petitioner who is a resident of Ward No.VI of Maranalloor Grama Panchayat and fifth respondent who is a resident of Perumpazhuthoor, the neighbouring Grama Panchayat and others applied for appointment as ARD No.607 in Ward No.VI of Maranalloor Grama Panchayat. Initially, by order passed on 28.12.1994, the District Supply Officer appointed the fifth respondent as the licensee. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. Appeals were filed by other applicants also. All the appeals were heard and by a common order passed on the appeals, the District Collector set aside the order passed by the District Supply Officer on 29.10.1994 and directed the District Supply Officer to pass fresh orders on the applications. The District Supply Officer thereafter passed Ext.P1 order dated 5.8.1996 appointing the fifth respondent as the licensee. The fifth respondent commenced running the ARD pursuant to the order initially passed on 28.12.1994.

(3.) The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 by filing an appeal before the District Collector. By Ext.P2 order passed on 13.3.1998, the appeal was dismissed affirming Ext.P1. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. By Ext.P3 order passed on 25.10.1999, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies held that the fifth respondent who is residing in the neighbouring panchayat cannot claim preference over the petitioner who is a resident of Ward No.VI in Maranalloor Grama Panchayat. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies accordingly directed that the petitioner be appointed as the retail dealer. The fifth respondent thereupon moved the Government by filing a revision petition under clause 71 of the Kerala Rationing Order. By Ext.P4 order passed on 12.10.2001 after notice to and affording the petitioner and other applicants an opportunity of being heard, the Government set aside Ext.P3 and restored Ext.P1 order. The petitioner did not challenge Ext.P1 in time, instead, he filed Ext.P6 petition dated 10.11.2001 before the State Government seeking a review of Ext.P4 order. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.17805 of 2003 in this Court. In the said writ petition, he did not challenge Ext.P4. He only sought a disposal of Ext.P6 review petition. W.P.(C) No.17805 of 2003 came up for hearing on 8.11.2006. On noticing that the petition for review is not maintainable and the fact that Ext.P4 order was not under challenge in that writ petition, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed W.P.(C) No.17805 of 2003 without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 Government order dated 12.10.2001 in appropriate proceedings. This writ petition was thereupon filed on 21.3.2007 challenging Exts.P1, P2 and P4 and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents to appoint the petitioner as the authorised retail distributor.