High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
JAYA JOSE v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 30181 of 2006(R)  RD-KL 4185 (26 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 30181 of 2006(R)
1. JAYA JOSE,
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
5. SHRI. A.K.PAUL,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JW.P(C).No.30181 OF 2006 (R)
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007
The District Collector, Thrissur, invited applications for appointment of an authorised wholesale distributor of ration articles. The choice fell in favour of the petitioner. The contesting 5th respondent challenged that decision before the Civil Supplies Commissioner and later before the Government, as per Exhibit R5(d). Ultimately, the Government, as per Exhibit P5 Government Order, held that the 5th respondent is entitled to have the allotment in his favour since he provided a solvency certificate for rupees seven lakhs and because he was a physically handicapped person.
2. The required solvency for the purpose of the competition was for rupees six lakhs, which was provided by the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. Without a prescription being provided in that regard, it is inappropriate that a comparison of WPC.30181/2006(R) solvency amounts has been made to choose the person entitled to be appointed as the dealer.
3. Under clause 45(2)(a), a physically handicapped person is entitled to be considered with preference, while considering the question of allotment of retail depots. That rule does not apply to wholesale depots. There is also no rule pointed out before me which enable the Government to give a preference for physically handicapped persons, while choosing a wholesale dealer.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the observation in Exhibit P5 decision in favour of the 5th respondent goes.
5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent however submits that if one goes through the contentions raised in Exhibit R5(d) revision filed by him, it can be easily seen that the Government did not advert to consider all the rival contentions of the parties. WPC.30181/2006(R)
6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, Exhibit P5 is quashed and the matter is relegated for reconsideration by the Government, in accordance with the provisions of the rationing order. Let the needful be done after hearing the parties and final decision shall be taken within an outer limit of four months from the date of hearing of the parties. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge ms
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.