Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

All Kerala Retail Ration Dealers vs The District Supply Officer

Author: K.Vinod Chandran

Bench: K.Vinod Chandran

       

  

   

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015/25TH ASHADHA, 1937

                                   WP(C).No. 6136 of 2009 (J)
                                      ---------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------

        1. ALL KERALA RETAIL RATION DEALERS
            ASSOCIATION, REG. NO. 540/89, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
            REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, E.ABOOBACKER, S/O.LATE KUNHALU,
            AGED 54, ELAYEDATH HOUSE, P.O.PULPATTA,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

        2. K.RAMACHANDRAN, ARD NO.19,
            POONIAKURISSI, PERINTHALMANNA.

        3. E.VENUGOPALAN, ARD NO.28,
            THAZEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK.

        4. T.K.BEEKUTTY, ARD NO. 162,
            BIDATHI -VAZHENGODU, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK.

        5. A.SAHIDA, ARD NO.65, MANKADA.

        6. K.PATHUMMAKUTTY, ARD NO.86,
            PULAMANTHOL UP.

             BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------

        1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
            MALAPPURAM.

        2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
            CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

             R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
            ON 16-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
            THE FOLLOWING:
sts

WP(C).NO.6136/2009


                                APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1.  COPY OF THE RENEWED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST
             PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2.  COPY OF THE INSPECTIONS DONE BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES UNDER
             RESPONDENT NO.3.

EXHIBIT P3.  COPY OF THE RATION CARD REGISTER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4.  COPY OF THE RATION LEDGER BEING KEPT BY THE PETITIONERS
             FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RATIONED ARTICLES

EXHIBIT P5.  COPY OF THE INSPECTION MEMO RECORDED BY THE TEAM LEADER
             ON THE VISITORS BOOK.

EXHIBIT P6.  COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE INSPECTION BOOK KEPT IN
             THE SHOP OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7.  COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF VISITORS BOOK OF 4TH AND
             PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8.  COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE VISITORS BOOK OF THE 5TH
             PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P9.  COPY OF THE MAHAZAR WAS PREPARED BY THE SPECIAL TEAM
             DATED 18/2/09 LEAD BY O.A.GOPAL, SUPPLY OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE SUPPLY OFFICER,
             MALAPPURAM

EXHIBIT P11. COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY ONE OF THE RATION DEALER TO THE
             DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:          NIL




                                             /TRUE COPY/


                                             P.S.TO JUDGE


sts



                       K. Vinod Chandran, J
                 -------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.6136 of 2009-J
                 -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 16th day of July, 2015

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a registered Association of Kerala Retail Ration Dealers, was aggrieved by the orders of the 2nd respondent to carry out inspection of the licensed dealerships of the members of the petitioner-Association. According to them, such inspections are high handed and one sided. It is submitted that an inspection team had been constituted for the Malappuram District and they are conducting surprise raids and taking away records without receipts. The prayer is to direct the respondents not to take any action without a show cause notice and without affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

2. The prayer is of a broad nature; not specific to a particular instance of such action having been taken or a high handed act having been committed. In any event, the writ petition is of the year 2009. There is absolutely no necessity to issue the directions as prayed for, since any authority is expected to issue a show cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing before WP(C).No.6136 of 2009 - 2 - an action is taken. There is no warrant for an assumption that action would be taken in violation of fundamental principles. However, if such an action is taken, it is for the aggrieved person to challenge the same. No orders can be issued in the writ petition.

The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

vku/-

[ true copy ]