Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 17223 OF 2013 PETITIONER: K.PAMEELA W/O. LATE A. BALAGOPAL, AGED 62 YEARS, AMBAL NIVAS, PALACE CORNER, KOLLENGODE P.O, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.VISHNU RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582 3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101. 4 ADDL.4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 29.10.2021 IN W.P.(C)NO.17223 OF 2013) SMT.RASHMI.K.M, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17223 of 2013 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the wife of late Sri.A.Balagopal, who was the authorised wholesale Ration Distributor with respect of AWD II and III in Mannarkkad Taluk. The dealership was granted in favour of her husband as per licence No.16/83-84
and Ext.P1 is the licence. The licence was renewed regularly till the death of A.Balagopal on 8.6.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2000, there was hike in the price of ration articles, such as rice and wheat. It is the further case of the petitioner that the retail
distributors and card holders preferred to purchase
the articles from the open market instead of approaching the ration dealers. In that contingency, it is the specific case of the
petitioner that the husband of the petitioner after getting permission from the then Taluk Supply Officer, sold the ration articles earmarked to the
APL(Above Poverty Line) Scheme to the BPL(Below Poverty Line) Scheme. According to the petitioner, the difference between the price of the rice articles between APL Scheme and BPL Scheme per quintal was about Rs.380/-. The price at the APL level was Rs.380/- higher than the BPL price. It
is submitted in the writ petition that, due to the above shifting, the petitioner's husband was entitled to get an adjustment of Rs.3,41,061.90. The petitioner's husband died on 8.6.2001. On the same date, when the Taluk spply officer visited the Ration shop, in the visit book, the then Taluk Supply Officer had made the endorsement of the above shifting that was done between the BPL and
APL Scheme. Ext.P2 is the relevant page of the visit book pertaining to the AWD shop. It is submitted by the petitioner that, when the
petitioner's husband was alive, ie., on 14.11.2000 itself, he had requested the 1st respondent by
submitting a representation for issuing an order
for transferring the above quantities of articles which were held in the godown for shifting it from APL to BPL. Ext.P3 is the representation. It is the further case of the petitioner that, as per letter dated 29.7.2005, the then Supply Officer, Mannarkkad, showing the details of the shifting of articles and recommended to give deduction amount of Rs.3,41,117/- in favour of the petitioner. After adjusting this amount, according to the petitioner, the actual amount due to be collected
from the petitioner was also requested to be intimated to the Taluk Supply Officer in that letter. Ext.P4 is the letter. It is also the case of the petitioner that, as per letter dated
16.3.2006 (Ext.P5), the Taluk Supply Officer had addressed the District Supply Officer recommending the adjustment of Rs.3,41,117/- from the total amount which has to be remitted by him towards the stock rice. Ext.P6 is the letter. It is the further case of the petitioner that the successor of the earlier Taluk Supply Officer without following the earlier proceedings, after referring a letter of the Civil Supplies Director dated
30.5.2012, intimated that the petitioner is not entitled to get the adjustment recommended by the earlier Taluk Supply Officer, since shifting was done without getting the prior permission from the Taluk Supply Officer. Hence, the petitioner was directed to remit Rs.3,41,117/- and also cost of Rs.4,802/- decreed in a suit which was instituted by the petitioner claiming differential cost of rice and wheat filed before the Sub court. That cost was also directed to be paid along with the
amount of Rs.3,41,117/- as per Ext.P7. On receipt of Ext.P7, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Minister of Food and
Civil Supplies as evident by Ext.P8 representation. Subsequently, Ext.P9 revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. In such circumstances, this writ petition is filed with following prayers. “(i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P7 and P9 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same,
(ii) pass an order declaring that the petitioner is not bound to make any payment as claimed in Exhibits P7 and P9,
(iii) pass such other appropriate order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the casae, and
(iv) award costs.”
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Sumathi Dandapani as instructed by Adv.Vishnu and the learned Government Pleader.
3. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned senior counsel submitted that the amount covered by Ext.R2(a) judgment and decree is already paid by the petitioner to the
respondents on 27.09.2013. The learned Government Pleader also conceded that, if that is the case what remains is only the interest and cost portion. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was conducting the ARD. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner approached the authorities for getting permission to sell the rice and wheat from APL to BPL. I perused Exts.P4, P5 and P6, in which it is clear that the Taluk Supply Officer and other officials recommended to accept the request of the husband of the petitioner to adjust the amount from the amount payable by the petitioner's husband. In such circumstances, according to me, the direction to pay interest to the amount which already paid will be an injustice to the wife of the deceased A.Balagopal. Admittedly there is no misappropriation or fraud alleged. The ration article supplied for the distribution to APL was
sold to BPL card holders and requested for approval. The same was recommended as per Exts.P4, P5 and P6. But subsequently when approval was not given, the amount was paid. Hence mulcting
interest in such case, that also to the widow of the former ARD will be an injustice. According to me, this is a matter to be looked into by the additional 4th respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner can be quashed and the question of payment of interest by the petitioner can be decided by the Government afresh. As I observed earlier, the Government should take this matter as a special case and will do the needful in accordance to law to see that the payment of interest is avoided in this particular case. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner. i) Exts.P7 and P9 are quashed. ii) The additional 4th respondent is directed to consider the waiver of payment of interest by the petitioner in the light of the fact that the admitted amount is already paid in the year 2013 and the petitioner is the wife of the deceased ARD. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17223/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF LICENCE NUMBER 16/83- 84,MANNARKKAD UNDER KERALA FOODG RAINS DEALERS' LICENSING ORDER, 1967, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOEN'S HUSBAND , A. BALAGOPAL
EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE VISIT
BOOK PERTAINING TO THE AUTHORISED
WHOLSALE DEPOT SHOP DONE 8/6/2001REFEREED TO IN THE WIRT PETITION EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRENETATION DTD HUSBAND BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. D 259/04 DTD DIST SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. D 264/05 DTD DIST SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DTD 10/8/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SHRI SUKUMARAN, PALAKKAD EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NONTICE NO.D 259/2005 DTD 11/9/2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P8 PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD RESPONDENT EXT.P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2005 ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.06.2007 ANNEXURE R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.05.2010 ANNEXURE R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.05.2010 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE