JUDGMENT : Syam Kumar V.M., J. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2021 in R.P.No.56 of 2021 from the judgment dated 17.10.2017 in W.P.(C) No.36194 of 2010 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the Review Petition. Appellant was not a party in the W.P.(C) though his father had been arrayed as the 6 th respondent in the W.P. (C). 2. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1 st respondent seeking to quash Ext.P11 order of the 2 nd respondent and for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 6 to grant the licence of retail ration depot having permanent licence ARD No.123 in the name of the 1 st respondent. 3. The learned Single Judge had vide judgment dated 17.10.2017 disposed of the Writ Petition setting aside Ext.P11 order as well as the consequential order passed by the District Collector dated 12.01.2011. The learned Single Judge also directed the District Supply Officer to issue a notice to the 1 st respondent to produce the legal heirship certificate and the authorisation by all other legal heirs and to carry out an enquiry as envisaged in Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and to consider the grant of licence for running the relevant ration shop namely ARD No.123 in Tirurangadi Taluk. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, a Review Petition was filed by the appellant, who is the son of the 6 th respondent, in the above Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Review Petition inter alia pointing out that there was inordinate delay in filing the same and that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Aggrieved by the judgments of the learned Single Judge both in the W.P. (C) as well as in the Review Petition, this Writ Appeal has been filed. 4. The additional 2 nd appellant was impleaded per order dated 06.10.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 since the appellant Sri.T.P.Santhosh Kumar passed away on 22.12.2021 during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Heard Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair, Advocate, for the 1 st respondent and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Senior Government Pleader for the official respondents. 6. 5. Heard Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair, Advocate, for the 1 st respondent and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Senior Government Pleader for the official respondents. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Judge had erred in rendering the impugned judgment in the W.P.(C) as well as in the R.P. It is contended that since the 1 st respondent, who was the petitioner in the W.P.(C), had not appeared and argued the matter when posted for hearing, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the W.P. (C). It is also contended that the learned Single Judge erred to take note of the fact that Krishnankutty, who had been running the shop had passed away in 2002 and nobody had made any claim till 2006. It is only when pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, the father of the Review Petitioner/appellant was found eligible for grant of licence, a claim was for the 1 st time made in the name of Vijayan, who is the brother of deceased Krishnankutty. It is further contended that in the enquiry pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, it had been found that Vijayan was acting as a benami of Narayanankutty, who was conducting the shop, and this finding was not challenged in revision or in the W.P. (C). The said factual finding had become final and the learned Single Judge had erred in overlooking the said fact. It had been specifically found that the mother of Vijayan had not filed any application nominating Vijayan and hence there was no scope or possibility of considering the same while selecting respondent No.6 in the W.P., who is the father of the appellant. It had also been revealed that Vijayan had studied only up to 5 th Standard and did not know how to write Malayalam nor did he have any financial capacity to conduct the ration shop. It was thus obvious that the application stated to have been preferred by the mother is only a ruse to maintain the Writ Petition which aspect was overlooked by the learned Single Judge and this has led to miscarriage of justice. It was thus obvious that the application stated to have been preferred by the mother is only a ruse to maintain the Writ Petition which aspect was overlooked by the learned Single Judge and this has led to miscarriage of justice. The finding in Exhibit P4 that Vijayan is not a legal heir ought to have been accepted, insofar as only a family membership certificate has been produced wherein it had been clearly stated that Vijayan is married and was having his wife and children. As such, Vijayan could never be termed as the legal heir of the deceased Krishnankutty or as a person dependent on him. It is contended by the learned counsel that the only person who had benefited from all this confusion is Narayanankutty who had been conducting the shop from the year 2002 onwards. This aspect was also overlooked by the learned Single Judge. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the Government had already passed an order in favour of the Writ Petitioner and therefore, the appellant, if aggrieved, has to challenge the order independently is also erroneous. The learned Single Judge ought to have noted that the claim that was put forth was belated and was made nearly 4 years after the notification was issued in the name of respondent No.6. In the enquiry before respondent No.4, it had been clearly revealed that no application had been preferred by the mother and it had been admitted that everything had been entrusted with Narayanankutty who was running the shop from 2002 onwards. The Review Petition came to be dismissed without taking note of the fact that none of the factual findings were ever challenged either in the petition, nor before the Revisional Authority. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of the settled principle that delay is to be condoned liberally, so as to decide the matter on merits and to dispense justice. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgments in the Review Petition as well as in the Writ Petition impugned in this appeal may be set aside. 7. Per contra, Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been rendered validly and in accordance with law, and thus it does not call for any interference. 7. Per contra, Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been rendered validly and in accordance with law, and thus it does not call for any interference. It is contended that Exhibit P11 order passed by the 2 nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and was liable to be quashed. The learned Single Judge had thus validly rendered the judgment quashing Exhibit P11 order. The learned Single Judge had rightly concluded that the Government could not have ignored the Family Membership Certificate produced as Exhibit P9 as the same had been issued by an authority under the Government itself and possessed due sanctity. It was also rightly concluded that on production of the Family Membership Certificate, time ought to have been granted for production of the legal heirship certificate, which is a document that takes more time for obtaining for reason that an enquiry is contemplated as well as a notification is mandated for its issuance. The learned counsel submits that the District Collector could not have ignored the claims of the legal heirs in view of the first proviso to sub clause 2 of Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, which stipulated that if the authorized retail distributor has issued a nomination, the same should be acted upon. The learned Single Judge had also rightly noted that even in the event of no nomination being made, any of the legal heirs should be appointed, once a nomination is made jointly by all the other legal heirs, as a temporary authorized retail distributor. Subsequently on production of the legal heirship certificate, the same could be made permanent after conducting due enquiry, as the District Supply Officer may consider necessary regarding the financial position of such person, and also on executing necessary agreement as provided for under the order. As regards the dismissal of the Review Petition, the learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the same, taking note of the humongous delay in filing the same, as well as the fact that the Government had already passed an order in the revision and if aggrieved, the appellant ought to have challenged the same separately. The learned counsel thus sought dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 8. The learned counsel thus sought dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 8. The learned Government Pleader made submissions in line with the counter affidavit that had been filed in the W.P. (C) and submitted that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, to maintain the Review Petition. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the judgments of the learned Single Judge both in the R.P. as well as in the W.P.(C) does not call for any interference as they have been rendered after a detailed and thorough consideration of respective contentions. 9. We have considered the contentions put forth by both sides. We note that the learned Single Judge had in the impugned judgment rendered in the W.P.(C) taken note of the fact that the parties had been agitating before the authorities under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and before this Court, since years together, for getting a licence. It would be relevant to peruse the proviso to Clause 45(2) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 dealing with appointment of ARD. It reads as follows: "Providing that the Authorized Retail Distributor shall nominate a member of his family for appointment as the Authorised Retail Distributor, in the event of his being incapable of running the ration business, owing to old age or illness or in the event of his death. The nominee shall be appointed, as a temporary licensee forthwith, on the death of the licensee, without insisting on the proof of financial stability, production of legal heirship certificate etc. The willingness of the nominee shall be obtained by the Authorised Retail Distributor before his/her nomination. The above appointment shall be made permanent, on production of satisfactory proof of financial stability of the nominee, if, the authorized retail distributor dies, without exercising his nomination as provided above, the District Supply Officer shall appoint any of the legal heirs, nominated jointly all the other legal heirs, as a temporary Authorised Retail Distributor. The above appointment shall be made permanent, on production of satisfactory proof of financial stability of the nominee, if, the authorized retail distributor dies, without exercising his nomination as provided above, the District Supply Officer shall appoint any of the legal heirs, nominated jointly all the other legal heirs, as a temporary Authorised Retail Distributor. Such temporary appointment shall be made permanent, only on production of legal heirship Certificate from the concerned authority..." It had rightly noted by the learned Single Judge that the first proviso to sub clause 2 of Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order stipulates that if the authorized retail distributor has issued a nomination, the same should be acted upon, and that even in the event of no nomination, any one of the legal heirs should be appointed as a temporary authorized retail distributor on a nomination made jointly by all the other legal heirs. Thereafter, on production of the legal heirship certificate, the said temporary authorized retail distributorship could be made permanent, after conducting due enquiry by the District Supply Officer. In such an inquiry, the financial position of the person could be looked into and the execution of necessary agreement as provided under the order, could be insisted. It would also be relevant to note paragraph 37(1) and (2) of the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2021 which stipulates as follows: “37. Licence by Nomination or Compassionate Ground or Salesman-- (1) The existing Authorized Retail Distributors under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 , who have obtained the licence provided under proviso to para 26, in the event of his being incapable of running the fair price shop owing to old age or illness or attaining the age of 70 years or in the event of death, may nominate his/her legal heir as the next licencee of such fair price shop. The willingness of the nominee shall also be produced along with nomination. The willingness of the nominee shall also be produced along with nomination. Nomination shall be exercised in Form 'J' given at Annexure X. (2) If the nomination is submitted in the event of his being incapable of running the fair price shop owing to old age or illness or attaining the age of 70 years, the Licensing Authority after verification of the medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner in this regard and after conducting necessary enquiry, may grant licence provisionally to the nominee without insisting on the production of proof of financial stability. Such licence shall be made permanent only on the production of proof of financial stability in the form of Treasury Fixed Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) duly pledged in the name of Licencing Authority within three months and legal heirship certificate issued by the competent authority within six months and after conducting necessary enquiry, as the Licensing Authority may deem necessary, as to the fulfillment of eligibility conditions specified in paras 27 and 28. If the nominee fails to furnish the Treasury Fixed Deposit and the legal heirship certificate within such period, the provisional licence, shall be cancelled by the Licensing Authority: Provided that the licencee who has submitted nomination under para 37(1) shall not involve in the conducting of fair price shop in any manner after his nominee obtained the license.” Thus legal heirship certificate is mandated for granting of Licence to a nominee under Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2021 too. 10. This takes us to the question of production of only a family membership certificate which has been the prime reason mentioned in Exhibit P11 order under challenge in the W.P.(C). It had been stated in Exhibit P11 that at the hearing held on 26.04.2010, the representative of Vijayan was called upon to produce the legal heirship certificate and that time was sought till 15.05.2010 to produce the same. Thereafter an application dated 15.05.2010 was preferred seeking to extend the time period for a period of one more month. Even after the said period, the legal heirship certificate had not been produced and for the said reason, the claim put forth by Vijayan had been turned down in Exhibit P11. Thereafter an application dated 15.05.2010 was preferred seeking to extend the time period for a period of one more month. Even after the said period, the legal heirship certificate had not been produced and for the said reason, the claim put forth by Vijayan had been turned down in Exhibit P11. This stand was deprecated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment stating that the Government ought not have ignored the Family Membership Certificate which had been produced as the same had been issued by an authority under the Government, thus possessing due validity and that on production of the Family Membership Certificate, time ought to have been granted for production of the legal heirship certificate. The learned Single Judge had noted that legal heirship certificate is a document that takes more time for obtaining for the reason that an enquiry is contemplated as well as a notification is mandated for its issuance. The learned Single Judge had further directed that the District Supply Officer shall issue a notice to the 1 st respondent to produce the legal heirship certificate and the authorization by all the other legal heirs. The time period for such production had been fixed at 2 months from the date of communication. Thereafter, it was directed that an enquiry as envisaged in Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order shall be conducted in accordance with law. In the light of the legal provisions reproduced above, and in the facts and circumstances, we find that the said reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge is valid and tenable. Nothing has been argued before us to arrive at a conclusion that the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge was erroneous in any respect. As regards the order rendered by the learned Single Judge in the Review Petition, we find that the finding that there has been gross delay in filing the same is valid and proper. The judgment in the W.P.(C) had been rendered on 17.10.2017 and the Review Petition was filed only on 21.12.2020. No legally sustainable explanation has been provided for the delay, except for the statement that the respondent No.6 had passed away. The judgment in the W.P.(C) had been rendered on 17.10.2017 and the Review Petition was filed only on 21.12.2020. No legally sustainable explanation has been provided for the delay, except for the statement that the respondent No.6 had passed away. The further finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the order dismissing the R.P. that an order has been rendered by the Government subsequent to the judgment and that the same has to be independently challenged is also valid and sustainable. With the long delay that had occasioned, as well as the subsequent developments during the interregnum, no orders as sought for by the appellant in the R.P. could have been granted and the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the R.P., vide the order impugned. It is also relevant to note that the learned Judge has tempered the directions rendered by holding that an enquiry as envisaged under Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order has to be conducted and also held that if a fresh notification is made for appointment then the 2 nd appellant shall also be entitled to apply. The judgment is thus in accordance with law and suffers from no infirmity. 11. In view of the above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment in the W.P.(C) and the order in the R.P. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.