AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner who is an authorised retail distributor conducting ARD No.247 of Aluva Taluk is aggrieved by the rejection of his request for shifting
the ration shop from ward no.1.
Petitioner is the licensee conducting ARD no 247 of Aluva Taluk since 1985. It is stated that when he commenced the ration shop, there were 300
ration cardholders attached to the shop from ward no.1, majority of whom were plantation workers. It is stated that the number of cardholders
reduced consequent to the retirement of the plantation workers and as at present there are only 163 ration cardholders and out of them, 150 are
residents of ward No.4 of Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat and the rest of them are residents of ward No.1. It is stated that the ration cardholders of
ward No.4 are residing far away from the ration shop. Seeing the difficulty faced by them to collect ration articles, the petitioner had requested for
permission to open a subcentre of the ARD 247 in ward No.4. It is stated that as per Ext.P1 report dt.21.05.2018, the 3rd respondent â€" the Taluk
Supply Officer, had addressed the 2nd respondent explaining the inconvenience caused to the ration cardholders. However, the 2nd respondent â€
the District Supply Officer rejected the request stating that there is no provision for opening a subcentre for a ration shop. Thereupon the petitioner
submitted an application for shifting the ration shop from ward no.1 to 4 suggesting the building number also to which it can be shifted. It is stated that
167 ration cardholders had also submitted a petition before the 2nd respondent pointing out their convenience in the event of a shifting of the ration
shop. But the 2nd respondent rejected that application as per Ext.P3 letter stating that the petitioner did not produce the no objection certificate from
the Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the same. According to the petitioner, shifting is not allowed only because
of the personal grudge of one of the members of the Panchayat stating that he would not be able to produce a certificate from the Panchayat.
According to the petitioner, there is no provision contained in clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order which provides for a no objection certificate
from the Panchayat. He thereafter submitted Ext.P4 representation before the District Collector on 10.08.2020. Whileso he had also requested for
permission to stock the ration articles in the building available in ward No.4, for the purpose of distribution of the free kit to the ration cardholders. It is
stated that the said suggestion was accepted and then he could distribute the ration articles from the ward no.4. Even though this could be done for a
period of 3 months, the 3rd respondent did not permit him from 23.9.2020 onwards to unload the ration articles. The Writ Petition is filed challenging
Ext.P3 order and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to shift the ration shop from building no.1/404 to building
no.4/112 of Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat and also to the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 representation.
The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as ARD for ward No.1 of Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat
for the purpose of carrying out distribution of rationed articles to the cardholders of ward No.1 of the panchayat as per Ext.R2(a) order dated
20.02.1986. It is stated that as per clause 45(4) of Kerala Rationing Order, the ARD is entitled to supply rationed articles in accordance with the order
of appointment in the areas which are specified therein, in tune with the terms of the agreements executed by the petitioner on his appointment. It is
stated that out of the 165 cardholders presently attached to the petitioner's depot, 145 are residents of ward No.4, which is about 11 km away from the
depot. It is stated that the petitioner's request for opening a subcentre was forwarded to the Director of Civil Supplies, who rejected it as per
Ext.R2(c) letter dated 21.06.2018 stating that there is no provision for the same. Ext.R2(d) application submitted by the petitioner on 4.12.2018 for
shifting of the ration shop from the present ward No.1 to ward No.4, which is 11 km away, was also considered and it was rejected as per Ext.R2(f)
letter dt.19.06.2020 of the District Supply Officer. It is stated that normally the shifting of ration shop from one building to another would be required in
circumstances like deterioration of the present building, requirement of additional space or on demand of the landlord to vacate the building. In such
cases Shifting is allowed to another building in the notified ward itself. In case of non availability of suitable building in the notified ward, sanction
would be accorded to shift the shop to the adjacent ward only after ascertaining the convenience of cardholders through local bodies. It is stated that
the decision of the local body is also considered with due importance before final orders are issued, going by the prevailing practice. It is further stated
that the building proposed by the petitioner is 11 km away from the present building and moreover as per Ext.R2(e) resolution the Panchayat has
expressed its dissent against shifting the depot from ward no.1 to ward no.4. It is also stated that there is another depot within 1 km from the proposed
building in ward no.4. Ext.R2(f) order dt.19.6.2020 was issued after considering all these aspects. It is the further contention of the respondent that
under the National Food Security Act, 2013, which is implemented in the State from 1.11.2016, the role of local bodies is important for the functioning
of targeted public distribution system and it is the responsibility of the local authorities for the proper implementation of the Act in the respective areas.
It is also stated that as at present portability facility is available to cardholders to procure rationed articles from any ration shop. It is stated that as per
Ext.R2(g) letter dated 16.10.2019, the Government had rejected the request of the petitioner for opening a subcentre. At that time also, the facility for
portability was mentioned by the Government. It is stated that the appeal submitted by the petitioner against Ext.R2(f) order is pending consideration.
Heard Sri C.K.Pavithran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Princy Xavier, the learned Government Pleader.
From Ext.R2(a) order appointing the petitioner as ARD, under clause 45 (1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, it is seen that the authorisation
granted to the petitioner was to carry on the business in ward No.1 of Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat and that he is bound by the terms of the
agreement executed by him at that time of his appointment. Admittedly, there are cardholders belonging to ward No.1 and 4 and majority of them are
from ward No.4, which is at a distance of 11 km away from the present shop in ward No.1. A ration shop is supposed to function having regard to the
convenience of the ration cardholders, to collect the articles. The petitioner cannot insist that the ration depot should be in a particular area or it would
be shifted to an area which is 11 km away. It is seen that the number of cardholders from ward no.1 are meagre and that the petitioner had been
conducting the ration shop near the area of plantation and most of the beneficiaries were from the Plantation. It is also seen that the reduction in
number of cardholders is likely to affect the livelihood of the petitioner. However Ext.R2(a) itself shows that the order of appointment of the petitioner
as ARD is in ward no.1. The petitioner cannot therefore insist that the ARD should be shifted to another ward. Therefore, even assuming that there is
no requirement of no objection certificate from the Panchayat, provided in the Rationing Order, it is necessary to look into the order of appointment as
well as the convenience of the ration cardholders. The respondents have stated that there is a resolution passed by the Grama Sabha against the
shifting. The 2nd respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner considering all these aspects. Admittedly the shifting is sought by the petitioner
to a place which is 11 km away from the present depot and, that too, in another ward. The petitioner has not pointed out any provision for a shifting
from the ward in which he was appointed to another ward, that too, at a distance of 11 kms. Moreover, it cannot also be said that local body does not
have any role in the matter, after the enforcement of Food Security Act under which smooth maintenance of public distribution system is on the local
bodies. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the only person available for supplying the ration articles in the
remote area when there were no other facilities and the present condition would seriously affect him, it cannot be said that the order impugned suffers
from any illegality.
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed.