Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 28TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 1931 of 2013 (N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M.P.MOHAMMED YOONIS, AGED 4 YEARS S/O.UNNI HAJI, RESIDING AT MULANJIPPULAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL PIN ”
503. BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.VIVEK RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
001.
2. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, NORTHERN ZONE KOZHIKODE ”
001.
3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, MALAPPURAM ”
101.
4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURM DISTRICT ”
101. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NOS. 1932/2013 & 1933/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1931 of 2013 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.DC(NZ)4-2386/12 DATED 31 10.2012 EXT.P-2SERIES:TRUE COPY OF THE MONTHLY INTEND SUBMITTED BY THE DEALER FROM JANUARY 201 TO AUGUST 2012 EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16 11.2012 ALONG WITH STAY PETITION. EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 19 11.2012 IN WPC NO.27379/2012. EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22 12.2012. EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11 1.2013. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE Shg/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P. ) No.1931, 1932 & 1933 OF 201.......................................................................... Dated this the 18th January, 2013 JUDGMENT
The issues involved in all these cases are similar and hence, dealt with together.
2. The petitioners are authorised retail distributors running ARD Nos. 203 and 205 (W.P.(C)No. 1931 of 2013), ARD No.202 (W.P.(C)No. 1932 of 2013) and ARD No.198 (W.P.(C)No. 1933 of 2013) in Tirur Taluk. Pursuant to some complaints, the dealership licence of the petitioners came to be suspended as per Exts. P1 (in all the three cases). Being aggrieved of the above proceedings, the petitioners preferred Ext.P3 appeals along with stay petitions (in all the three cases). Because of the coercive proceedings, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing writ petitions (viz. W.P.(C)Nos.27379 of 2012, 27378 of 2012 and 27376 of 2012) which culminated in Ext. P4 judgment ( in the concerned case), whereby the appellate authority was W.P. ) No.1931, 1932 & 1933 OF 201.2 directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in the petitions for stay. Pursuant to the said direction, the appellate authority considered the merit of each case and granted Exts. P5 interim orders of stay, however limiting the benefit only for a period of '30' days. Since the appeals are still pending, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P6 petitions for extension of the interim orders, which however are not acted upon. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. The fact remains that the appellate authority found some merit in the cases and it was accordingly, that Ext.P5 interim order/s was/were passed, limiting the same for a period of 30 days. The probable reason which could be gathered by this Court, for limiting the benefit tor '30' days might be with an intention to have the appeals disposed of within '30' days. It is also a fact that the appeals are still pending, to be considered and disposed of.
5. In the above circumstance, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders in all the appeals W.P. ) No.1931, 1932 & 1933 OF 201.3 preferred by the petitioners, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is made clear that the interim orders passed by the appellate authority vide Exts.P5 will continue till such time. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the concerned writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. The writ petitions are disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk