Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 PETITIONER: MINI V.V., AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. JAGADHEESAN T.P., THAZHATH PUTHENVEETIL, THEKKUMBAD P.O., MATTOOL, THEKKUMBAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670301. BY ADVS. R.SUDHISH M.MANJU RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE ROAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670002. 2 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002. 3 PRAMOD T., THALERIYAN HOUSE, EAR YASIN ROAD, MATTUL CENTRE, P.O. MATTUL SOUTH, KANNUR, PIN - 670302. BY ADV.SMT.VIDHYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
JUDGMENT
When this matter was considered by this
Court for admission today, the learned Government Pleader - Smt.Vidhya Kuriakose, submitted that the petitioner obtains an
alternative effective remedy, of approaching the Government, under paragraph 63 of the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2021.
2. Smt.Vidhya Kuriakose submitted that,
therefore, if the petitioner is so interested, she can be given such liberty, so that all aspects can be considered in its proper perspective by the competent Authority of the Government. She added that, if this Court is so inclined, then the status quo as on today can be maintained and that grant of contract to the 3rd respondent, if it has not -3- already been done, can be deferred.
3. Sri.R.Sudhish - learned counsel for
the petitioner, in response, submitted that the afore provision is not an alternative remedy; and that his client is justified in having approached this Court through this writ petition.
4. Prima facie, I find cause for the petitioner, but I am of the view that a proper assessment of his grievances cannot be done by this Court at the first instance, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since there is a clear inhibition in this Court entering into the
realm of factual and documentary disputations. Therefore, I am certain that the afore suggestion of the learned Government Pleader would be the best
-4- available to the petitioner.
5. Sensing the mind of this Court as afore, Sri.R.Sudhish agreed to the afore course. In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition; however, leaving full liberty
to the petitioner to move the Government under the aforesaid provision of law; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, same shall be considered by its competent Authority, after hearing her, as also the 3rd respondent; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months thereafter. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant -5-
order communicated to the parties, status quo
as at 11 a.m. today (01.11.2023) shall be maintained by both sides; which is to mean that, if the contract with the 3rd respondent has not been entered into, action for the same shall be deferred until the afore time.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN akv JUDGE -6- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36031/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 RUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 1359 OF 2023 DATED 2/03/2023 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.3.2023 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18/04/2023 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKKNR/7567/2023 - D4OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DATED 17.10.2023 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR, THE SUBORDINATE OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.9.2019