Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 608 (KER)

Shamza v. State of Kerala

2020-07-16

ANU SIVARAMAN

body2020
ORDER : Anu Sivaraman, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:- "i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order compelling the respondents to transfer the license of ARE) No. 39 of Karthikappally Taluk of Alappuzha District in favour of the 1st petitioner from 2nd petitioner taking into consideration in the proviso to clause 45 (2) of the Kerala Rationing order and Exts. P5, P8 and P9. ii) To declare that the petitioners are similarly placed as that of the persons mentioned in Exts. P5 and P9 and entitled to transfer the license from the name of the 2nd petitioner to the 1 petitioner." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner had been conducting a ration shop in Karthikappally Taluk. It is stated that the petitioners are residing together in the same house and they had jointly submitted an application for transfer of the ARD licence in the name of the 1st petitioner. It is submitted that the 2nd petitioner is aged over 82 years and is unable to conduct the business. It is contended that in similar circumstances, orders have been passed transferring ARD licenses to persons other than legal heirs of the existing licensees. It is stated that in Ext. P8 judgment, this Court had directed a consideration of the claim of a person, who was not a legal representative of the existing licensee as well. It is submitted that the request made by the petitioners at Ext. P6 is liable to be considered by the respondents, taking note of the fact that similar applications have been considered by the respondents. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the 1 petitioner being the daughter-in-law of the 2nd petitioner is not a legal heir of the 2nd petitioner. It is submitted, however, that the request for transfer of licence will be considered by the respondents, in accordance with law, taking note of all relevant aspects including Exts. P5 reply, P8, P9 and P10 orders. 5. It is submitted, however, that the request for transfer of licence will be considered by the respondents, in accordance with law, taking note of all relevant aspects including Exts. P5 reply, P8, P9 and P10 orders. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that since the competent respondents have not considered the application, it is for the respondents to take an appropriate decision in the matter. The similar instances pointed out by the petitioners, where transfer of licences have been granted to persons who are not legal heirs of the licensee are are also to be taken note of by the appropriate authority while considering the application submitted by the petitioners. The contention that the petitioners are members of the household of the licensee is also to be taken note of. 6. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the competent among the respondents to consider and pass orders on the request made by the petitioners for transfer of the ARD licence from the name of the 2nd petitioner to that the 1st petitioner. The respondents shall take due note of Exts. P5 reply, P9 and P10 orders as well as the findings in Ext. P8 judgment while considering the application. Orders shall be passed, after hearing the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.