Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2511 (KER)

Shan J. S/o Jalaludeen v. State of Kerala

2025-09-19

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M.

body2025
JUDGMENT : SYAM KUMAR V.M., J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 26.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 21865 of 2019. Appellant was respondent No.6 in the said W.P.(C) and respondent Nos.1 to 5 were the respondents therein. The 6 th respondent herein was the petitioner in the WP (C). 2. The W.P.(C) was filed by respondent No.6, challenging the selection of the appellant as the authorised retail distributor for Ration Depot No.221 of Vettiyara Ward No.7 of Navaikulam Panchayat. The following prayers were sought in the W.P.(C) : “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exts.P11(a), P31, P33 and P35 and quash them ; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as the Authorised retail Distributor of ARD No.221 in erstwhile ward No.7 of Navaikulam Panchayat, (now ward No.1 and 21) of Varkala Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District ; iii) declare that the 6 th respondent is ineligible from being permanently appointed as the Licencee of ARD No.221 in erstwhile ward No.7 of Navaikulam Panchayat, (now ward No.1 and 21) of Varkala Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District ; iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition (Civil).” 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the W.P.(C) and quashed Exts.P11(a), P31, P33 and P35 and further, directed respondent No.4 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the W.P. (C), in the light of the principles laid down in the judgment, within a time period of 8 weeks. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the 6 th respondent in the W.P.(C). 4. No counter affidavit had been filed by the appellant in the W.P.(C) and pursuant to the interim order dated 22.05.2025 an affidavit dated 27.05.2025 with annexures was filed by the appellant. In response to the same, a counter affidavit dated 05.06.2025, along with annexures was filed by the 6 th respondent also. 5. Heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, Advocate for the appellant and Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, Advocate, for the 6 th respondent. In response to the same, a counter affidavit dated 05.06.2025, along with annexures was filed by the 6 th respondent also. 5. Heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, Advocate for the appellant and Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, Advocate, for the 6 th respondent. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader, was heard on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been rendered on an incorrect appreciation of law and facts and is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the appellant had been found eligible by respondents 1 to 5, who are the duly competent authorities to issue the permanent licence and effect appointment as a ration dealer, and no fault had been found in the application preferred by the appellant. It is submitted that the 6 th respondent is currently ineligible as he is now 63 years old and as per the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2021, an applicant should not be above the age of 62 years as on the first day of January in which year the application is made. Even a fresh application from the 6 th respondent cannot be entertained as he is beyond the prescribed age limit. It is admitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have noted that respondent No.6, who had filed the petition, had no locus standi as he had already been found to be an ineligible applicant by respondent Nos.1 to 5 and that the petition had been filed only to harass the appellant. It is admitted that, after the rejection of the application of the 6 th respondent, he had approached respondent Nos.3, 2 and 1 respectively and had filed appeals and the same had been rejected as per Exts.P31, P33 and P35. It is submitted that the appellant had been running the ration depot for more than 9 years in a highly exemplary manner with no complaints from any quarters and that his ration depot is the only computerised ration depot from among the 19 ration depots in Navaikulam Grama Panchayat. It is reiterated that respondent No.6 did not have any eligibility to operate as an authorised retail distributor and his application is ab initio void for not having separate permission to store kerosene, as is necessary under the relevant notification. It is reiterated that respondent No.6 did not have any eligibility to operate as an authorised retail distributor and his application is ab initio void for not having separate permission to store kerosene, as is necessary under the relevant notification. It is submitted that an absolutely ineligible 6th respondent had challenged the selection of the appellant only to cause hardships to him. The learned Single Judge had overlooked the said relevant fact. Exts.P11 (a), P31, P33 and P35 were quashed by the learned Single Judge without any reasoning or explanation. It is thus prayed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge may be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 vehemently contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and has been rendered in accordance with law. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant is not a resident of the locality and on the said short ground, the application preferred by him was liable to be rejected. It is further contended that as per Ext.P1 notification published on 18.06.2016, certain stipulations had been made for eligibility, none of which had been met by the appellant. The appellant had not produced any solvency certificate and the acceptance prior to 2 months of the application, is pertaining to the solvency certificate and not the treasury deposit, as contended by the appellant. It is submitted that there is no question of any money being deposited in the treasury prior to 2 months from the very date of issuance of Ext.P1 notification. Insofar as the treasury deposit that has been made, much precedes the date of the notification, it is discernible, according to the learned counsel, that the same was made for a different purpose, presumably related to his temporary continuance as ARD. The same, as per Ext.P8 Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose. It is contended that the experience certificate produced by the appellant does not satisfy, even prima facie, the requirements as contemplated in the said respect under Ext.P1 notification. It is submitted that, as per the notification, the experience certificate should be issued from the supply office, and the original of the said certificate should invariably be produced. It is contended that the experience certificate produced by the appellant does not satisfy, even prima facie, the requirements as contemplated in the said respect under Ext.P1 notification. It is submitted that, as per the notification, the experience certificate should be issued from the supply office, and the original of the said certificate should invariably be produced. The experience certificate produced at any rate would only show that he was appointed as a temporary licensee and that he had since then been conducting the relevant ration depot. The said certificate can never be accepted or, for that matter, reckoned as his having any experience in running the ARD as contemplated in Ext.P1 notification. The said certificate it is contended, is liable to be rejected in the light of the second proviso to clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. It is further contended that as per the second proviso to clause 45 of the rationing order, a person who is a full-time employee in any establishment or who is not normally resident in the locality shall not be eligible to hold an authorisation to run the retail ration depot. When a full-time employee is interdicted, a person appointed as a full-time temporary ARD, till a permanent appointment is made, is equally forbidden from being appointed as an ARD. Placing reliance on the documents produced along with the W.P.(C) as well as the annexures R 6 (a) to R 6 (g), the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent contended that none of the contentions put forth by the appellant are tenable and that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 8. We have heard both sides in detail and have also considered the contentions put forth. We note that the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition on two grounds. Firstly, it was concluded that the solvency as well as the Bank guarantee produced by the appellant were before the date of Ext.P1 notification, and hence the appellant cannot contend that the solvency as well as the Bank guarantee had been submitted as required in Ext.P1 notification. Firstly, it was concluded that the solvency as well as the Bank guarantee produced by the appellant were before the date of Ext.P1 notification, and hence the appellant cannot contend that the solvency as well as the Bank guarantee had been submitted as required in Ext.P1 notification. In this respect, we note that the requirement in Ext.P1 notification was that the applicant must produce proof of having a minimum amount of Rs.50,000/- either as a cash deposit or as a treasury deposit pledged in favour of the District Supply Officer, which is taken within the period of 2 months preceding the date of application. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the District Supply Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, in the Treasury Savings Account bearing No. TSA 904 maintained with the Sub-Treasury Kudappanakunnu in compliance with Document No.1 contemplated in Ext.P1 notification. The deposit had been made on 21.05.2016, which is within a period of 2 months preceding the date of application of 16.07.2016. Thus, the mandate in respect of solvency in Ext.P1 notification had been duly complied with. Hence, the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the solvency as well as the Bank guarantee produced by the appellant were before the date of Ext.P1 notification cannot be sustained. Secondly, as regards the experience certificate to be produced from the District Supply Office, the learned Single Judge had concluded that of the two certificates produced by the appellant, the first one, viz., Ext.P16 had been issued by another licensee with whom the appellant was working as a salesman, and hence Ext.P16 was declared to be one that could not have been acted upon, as it is not issued by the Supply office. As regards the second certificate, viz., Ext.P20 issued by the Taluk Office in favour of the appellant, the learned Single Judge concluded that the same has to be considered along with the rider in Ext.P28 wherein it had been specifically provided that if a person was a temporary licensee, the same cannot be used for getting any preference for appointment as an authorised retail distributor. Holding that Ext.P20 thus reveal that the Taluk Supply Office had specifically certified that the appellant/6 th respondent was only a temporary licensee during the period; it was concluded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant cannot rely on Ext.P20 certificate, also in response to the requirement under Ext.P1 notification. We are afraid that the said finding with respect to the experience certificate arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, since the qualification as mandated does not say that experience should be of a permanent nature. We note that Ext.P1 notification had only stated that an original certificate from the supply officer proving prior experience in running a ration depot has to be produced to qualify for the eligibility criteria. There was no restriction that a temporary licensee’s experience of running a shop would not be deemed as experience in running a ration shop. Appellant was the temporary licensee of the very same Ration Depot, which is the subject matter of Ext.P1 notification, from 26.07.2013 till the date of the certificate, 10.05.2016. Since he became a successful candidate, he continued as a temporary licensee till he assumed the charge as a permanent licensee. Of the 10 applicants, including the appellant and respondent No. 6, only the appellant had the experience of running the ration depot as envisaged in the notification. All others had only experience of working as a salesman of a ration depot, which does not confer the experience of running the ration depot. Thus, the appellant was the only eligible candidate in terms of experience in compliance with the notification and a certificate dated 10.05.2016, as evident from Annexure A6. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the appellant, being a temporary licensee, for the period mentioned in the Certificate issued by the Taluk Supply Officer, does not meet the qualifications as mandated in Ext.P1 notification, is not sustainable. The reference made by the learned Single Judge to the rider in Ext.P28, which is the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and to the 2 nd proviso to clause 45 (1) thereto, which provided that if a person was a temporary licensee, the same cannot be used for getting any preference for appointment as an authorised retail distributor, had no relevance or applicability to the question concerning experience as required in Ext.P1 notification. The 2 nd proviso to clause 45 (1) of the rationing Order of 1966 only envisaged that in the event of delay in the appointment of an authorised retain distributor, a provisional appointment could be made for not exceeding six months at a time and the person so appointed shall have no right to continue as authorised retail distributor beyond the period for which he is appointed and shall not also have any preferential claim for the appointment as an authorised retain distributor. The said order does not in any manner impact the question of experience that a person had acquired with respect to running a ration shop, which was the look out of the experience requirement incorporated in Ext.P1 notification. The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the 2nd proviso to Order 45 (1) to hold that the experience certificate issued to the appellant is not valid cannot be sustained. Thus, we hold that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge on both counts to allow the W.P.(C) are erroneous and unsustainable. The impugned judgment, hence, cannot be sustained, and the same is set aside. Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.