Syamala v. Civil Supply Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram; District Collector, Palakkad; District Supply Officer, Palakkad; Deepthi M. Appu (W/o Gangadhar)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 2ND POUSHA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 1480 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** SYAMALA AGED 43 YEARS W/O SALI, XII, CHEMMANAMPATHI, MUTHALAMADA, PIN - 678 507. BY ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 CIVIL SUPPLY COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD - 678 013. 3 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001. 4 DEEPTHI M. APPU W/O. GANGADHARAN, HOUSE NO. 18/87, MUTHALAMADA, PIN - 678 507. BY ADVS. SRI JACOB SIMON, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.V.BOSE R4 BY SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SRI.SHARATH S.PUTHENPARAMPAN SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON 23.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 2 ## **T.R. RAVI, J.** ## **--------------------------------------------** W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of December, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has challenged the license issued by the District Supply Officer to the 4[th] respondent to function as the Authorised Ration Dealer (ARD) of Ration shop ARD No.158 of the Muthalamada Grama Panchayat. Applications were called for the appointment of dealer as can be seen from Exhibit P1 news report dated 19.6.2016. Exhibit P2 is a communication dated 20.2.2017 from the Taluk Supply Officer to the District Supply Officer, Palakkad, wherein it is stated that out of the 5 applications received, the applications submitted by the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent can be considered and that the other applicants are not eligible. Thereafter, as per Exhibit P3 proceedings dated 15.3.2017, the 3[rd] respondent considered the applications and ordered appointing the 4[th] respondent as the dealer. Even though the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent were found eligible, the 3[rd] respondent granted preference to the 4[th] respondent for the reason that she was unemployed and the younger person among the two. 2. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P3 before the 2[nd] W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 3 respondent. The 2[nd] respondent, by Exhibit P4 proceedings dated 24.11.2017, rejected the appeal. The main contention raised by the petitioner was that the 4[th] respondent was not a person residing in the concerned ward or within the service area of ARD No.158. It was also contended that the 4[th] respondent had not submitted documents to prove the residence along with the application and that the same were subsequently created for the purpose of supporting the application. The 2[nd] respondent considered the contentions and found that the 4[th] respondent was residing in Ward No.10 and that no interference is required with the decision of the 3[rd] respondent. 3. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent by Ext.P5 order dated 23.11.2018 confirmed the order of the 2[nd] respondent, but also observed that, if for any reason, it is found that the appointment of the 4[th] respondent was wrongly made, it is liable to be cancelled. The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 and for a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to cancel the license issued to the 4[th] respondent and re-allot the license to the petitioner. 4. Heard Sri Peeyus A. Kottam on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Vinod Madhavan on behalf the 4[th] respondent and Sri Jacob W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 4 Simon, Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 5. Exhibit P6 is a letter dated 24.3.2017 issued from the Taluk Supply Office to the District Supply Officer, wherein it is stated that the 4[th] respondent and her family is presently residing in house No.10/438 with one Chellammal. Along with the letter, statements taken from some of the neighbours are also enclosed. The statements have also been produced in the Writ petition. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the above statements are not sufficient to show that the 4[th] respondent was residing in Ward No.10 at the time of submitting the application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is stated that the orders were issued after considering all the relevant aspects and that the statutory appeal and revision petitioner were also ordered after hearing the petitioner and after considering the contentions. It is also stated that the fact regarding the residence of the 4[th] respondent was confirmed from enquiries conducted among residents of Ward No.10, other related documents and the report of the Taluk Supply Officer. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4[th] respondent. Along with the counter affidavit Exhibit R4(a) Residence Certificate dated 15.2.2017 issued by the Muthalamada Panchayat has been W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 5 produced to show the residence of the 4[th] respondent in Ward No.10. On directions issued by the Court, the Government Pleader has produced the notification inviting application for appointment as authorised ration dealer and documents showing the residential address of the 4[th] respondent, including the ration card held by the 4[th] respondent. It can be seen from the notification that the requirement as per the notification was that the applicant should be residing in Ward No.10 or within the service area of ARD No.158. The applications were to be submitted by 14.7.2016. Documents showing the earlier and present residence of the 4[th] respondent were also produced. The petitioner has produced Exhibits P8 to P10 to contend that residents of Ward No.9 also come within the service range of ARD 158. 7. The 4[th] respondent has produced Ext.R4(d) rent deed to show that she was residing in Ward No.10. She has also produced Ext.R4(c) which is a report submitted by the Rationing Inspector on 4.9.2018 during the hearing before the 1[st] respondent. Ext.R4(c) in which it is stated that the petitioner was residing about 4 to 5 kms from ARD No.158, and her residence is about 500 mts from ARD No.65 and that it is understood that she was residing within the service range of ARD No.65. W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 6 8. I have considered the arguments advanced on either side. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is concerned more with the decision making process and not the decision. 9. In **Union of India & Ors. v. P.Gunasekaran** reported in **[(2015) 2 SCC 610]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held while dealing with an issue arising from a disciplinary proceedings that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot venture into re-appreciation of evidence or interfere with conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities or go into the reliability or adequacy of the evidence or interfere with the findings, if there is some legal evidence on which the findings are based. 10. In **Remadevi v. Secretary to Government, Food and Civil Supplies** reported in **[2016 (2) KLT 16]** , a Division Bench of this Court held in para.11 as follows; “11. … … … This Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not reappraise the evidence on record or proceed to record finding of fact. An Order passed by an administrative authority can be interfered under Article 226 only when the order is either not based on any relevant material or is perverse. Order passed by the authorities cancelling the licence cannot be said to be based on no material whereas relevant materials W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 7 for coming to the finding has been mentioned in the charge memo which was found true after evaluation of the materials on record. That order in no manner can be said to be perverse. Petitioner was also given personal hearing, petitioner's husband along with an Advocate appeared and were heard. … … … “ 11. It is seen from the documents produced as well as those available before the authorities that it is not a case no materials were available before the statutory authorities to arrive at a conclusion that the 4[th] respondent was residing within the area specified in the notification. The decision cannot be termed as perverse. The decisions have been taken after hearing the petitioner and as such there can be no complaint regarding violation of the principles of natural justice. This court is not sitting in appeal over the concurrent findings recorded by the primary authority and the appellate and revisional authorities. There are no justifiable reasons warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **T.R. RAVI JUDGE** dsn W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1480/2019** |PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS|PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION INVITING| ||APPLICATION FOR CONDUCTING RATION SHOP| ||PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY NEWSPAPER| ||DATED 19.06.2016.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20/02/2017| ||SUBMITTED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,| ||CHITTOR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISTRICT| ||SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT| ||DATED 15/03/2017.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE DISTRICT| ||COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DATED 24/11/2017.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES| ||COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED| ||23.11.2018.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FORWARDED BY TALUK| ||SUPPLY OFFICER TO THE DISTRICT SUPPLY| ||OFFICER DATED 24.03.2017 ALONG WITH THE| ||STATEMENT RECORDED DATED 23.03.2017.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF NOTICE INVITING APPLICATION FOR| ||RUNNING RATION SHOP No.158 AT MUTHALAMAD| ||BEARING No.C.S.4781/13 DT.14.6.2016| |EXHIBIT P7(A)|TRUE TYPEWRITTEN COPY OF EXT..P7| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD BEARING| ||No.1947086302 IN THE NAME OF PARVATHY| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD BEARING| ||No.1947093790 IN THE NAME OF EESHWARY| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD BEARING| ||No.194786960 IN THE NAME OF THAMISHELVI| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |EXHIBIT R4(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENT CERTIFICATE DATED| ||15.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE MUTHALAMADA GRAMA| ||PANCHAYATH| |EXHIBIT R4(B)|TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION C.S.3 4781| ||DT.14.6.16 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY| ||OFFICER, PALAKKAD.| W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2019 9 EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COOPY OF REPORT DT.4.9.18 PREPARED BY THE RATIONING INSPECTOR, KOLLENGODE EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF RENT DEED DT.10.6.16 EXECUTED BETWEEN CHELLAMA AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT